NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 1

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

 PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY 

 AND HEALTH 

 

 + + + + + 

 ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION 

 AND WORKER HEALTH 

 + + + + + 

 WORK GROUP ON FERNALD SITE PROFILE AND 

 SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT (SEC) PETITION 

 + + + + + 

 TUESDAY, 

 OCTOBER 28, 2008 

 + + + + + 

 The Working Group convened in the 

Frankfurt Board Room at the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriot, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

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

Work Group Chair, presiding. 

MEMBERS PRESENT: 

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Chair 

MARK GRIFFON 

ROBERT W. PRESLEY 

PHILIP SCHOFIELD 

PAUL L. ZIEMER 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 2

ALSO PRESENT: 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official 

LARRY ELLIOTT, NIOSH ORAU 

JENNIFER HOFF, ORAU 

MARK ROLFES, NIOSH 

ROBERT MORRIS, ORAU 

LEO FAUST, ORAU 

BRYCE RICH, ORAU 

JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

NICOLE BRIGGS, SC&A 

HARRY CHMELYNSKI, SC&A 

EMILY HOWELL, HHS 

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor 

LIZ BRACKETT, HHS 

SANDRA BALDRIDGE, Petitioner 

ALLEN CALLAWAY, Fernald Medical Screening 

RAY BEATTY, Fernald Medical Screening 

STEVEN HILL, Office of Congressman Steve 

 Chabot 

JIM NETON, Fernald 

ARJUN MAKHIJANI, NIOSH 

HANS BEHLING, NIOSH 

BOB BARTON, SC&A 

BRYCE RICH, ORAU 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 3

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

2 (9:01 a.m.) 

3 MR. KATZ: This is Ted Katz. I am 

4 the DFO for the Advisory Board on Radiation 

5 Worker Health, and this is the Fernald Working 

6 Group. We are about to get started. 

7 The first thing we are going to do 

8 is take roll, beginning with the Board 

9 members, beginning in the room. I am going to 

10 try to not leave anyone out this time, like 

11 yesterday. So, Brad, identify yourselves, 

12 please. 

13 CHAIR CLAWSON: Okay. Brad 

14 Clawson. I am the Chair of the work group for 

15 Fernald. I am not conflicted. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Mark Griffon, a 

17 member of the work group, not conflicted. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, member 

19 of the work group, and not conflicted. 

20 MEMBER PRESLEY: Bob Presley, 

21 member of the work group; not conflicted. 

22 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone, do 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 4

1 we have Mr. Schofield? No? Okay, not 

2 present. It is early. It's fairly early 

3 right now. 

4 Okay. Then starting in the room 

5 with the NIOSH ORAU team. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott, 

7 director of ORAU; not conflicted. 

8 MS. HOFF: Jennifer Hoff, ORAU 

9 team; not conflicted with Fernald. 

10 MR. ROLFES: Mark Rolfes, NIOSH 

11 health Physicist. No conflict of interest. 

12 MR. MORRIS: Robert Morris, ORAU 

13 team. No conflict. 

14 MR. KATZ: How about on the 

15 telephone, NIOSH ORAU team? 

16 MR. FAUST: Leo Faust, ORAU team. 

17 Not conflicted. 

18 MR. RICH: Bryce Rich, ORAU team. 

19 Not conflicted. 

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. That sounds like 

21 that's it for the NIOSH ORAU team. How about 

22 SC&A, starting in the room. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 5

1 MR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. Not 

2 conflicted. 

3 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone? 

4 MS. BRIGGS: Nicole Briggs. No 

5 conflict. 

6 MR. CHMELYNSKI: Harry Chmelynski; 

7 no conflict. 

8 MR. MORRIS: Arjun and Hans Behling 

9 will be joining us. I think they believed the 

10 meeting was starting at 9:30, unfortunately. 

11 So they may not be poking in until then. 

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then let's go 

13 around, starting in the room -- well, federal 

14 employees first, in the room. 

15 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. No 

16 conflict. 

17 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, NIOSH 

18 contractor. No conflict. 

19 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone, 

20 federal employees. 

21 MS. AL-NABUSI: Isaf Al-Nabusi, DOE. 

22 No conflict. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 6

1 MS. BRACKETT: Liz Brackett with 

2 HHS. No conflict. 

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then members of 

4 the public and petitioners in the room, 

5 please. 

6 MS. BALDRIDGE: Sandra Baldridge, 

7 petitioner. 

8 MR. CALLAWAY: Allen Callaway, 

9 Fernald Medical Screening. 

10 MR. BEATTY: Ray Beatty for Fernald 

11 Medical Screening, assist the petitioner. 

12 MR. HILL: Steven Hill, Congressman 

13 Chabot's Office. 

14 MR. KATZ: Thank you. And any 

15 Congressional representatives on the 

16 telephone? Okay then. 

17 Has anybody from SC&A joined us? 

18 Arjun? Hans? Okay, I think that covers it. 

19 Just phone etiquette, please: For 

20 the folks on the phone, please use your mute 

21 button or your Star-6 except when you are 

22 speaking, please, so it doesn't interfere; and 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 7

1 if you disconnect with the phone, please 

2 actually hang up. Don't put us on hold, 

3 because that will also interfere with the 

4 call. Thanks. 

5 Brad, it's all yours. 

6 CHAIR CLAWSON: First of all, I 

7 would like to start out by thanking everybody 

8 for coming here for the Fernald Work Group. 

9 One of the things I want to make -- 

10 especially since we have some people, the 

11 petitioner and so forth, we do have some 

12 material but, unfortunately, there was not 

13 enough time to be able to run it through the 

14 Privacy Act. So that material we will have to 

15 keep here, but once it is cleared, we will be 

16 able to forward it on. It is kind of the 

17 matrix and so forth that we are working 

18 toward. 

19 We've got -- John has done a really 

20 good job. Our matrix has gotten very, very 

21 thick. So in being able to have something 

22 that we can handle with and work with, he has 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 8

1 reduced it down to a smaller one with the main 

2 tasks; but the big matrix is still tracking 

3 each one of the places where we have been, 

4 what we have done, how we have corrected it 

5 and so forth like that. 

6 So with that, I will turn it over 

7 to John. 

8 MR. MAURO: Thank you. Morning, 

9 everyone. 

10 Our last meeting was about six 

11 months ago back in -- I guess it was March. 

12 So I thought it might be a good idea, given 

13 the amount of time that has passed, just to 

14 sort of set the table a little bit. 

15 In the interim, I took over the 

16 leadership role of the Fernald work, and what 

17 I did to get ready for today is I gathered up 

18 the last versions of the matrices that were 

19 available. Turns out there were a couple of 

20 versions at the time. 

21 I believe, Mark, you had one. 

22 Brad, I think you might have had one, and they 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 9

1 were very similar, but I sort of collapsed 

2 them together. Didn't take anything out, just 

3 merged them together. 

4 What I did then is said, okay, that 

5 sort of brought me up to date up to the last 

6 meeting, October 2007, and the material up to 

7 but prior to the March meeting that we had in 

8 2008. 

9 So what I did was I said, okay, I 

10 am going to take that material, and I will 

11 bring it up to date by incorporating into it 

12 the last work group meeting material, and I 

13 would prepare that matrix and I would 

14 distribute it to everyone. I am assuming 

15 everyone has a copy of the memo that I sent 

16 out dated October 14th. I assume you have it 

17 either electronically or in hard copy. 

18 In effect, what I did here was 

19 something a little different. I hope everyone 

20 is okay with that. In our previous matrices, 

21 if you recall, we had like a series of 

22 columns, vertical columns, and I found it 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 10

1 difficult to work with that. 

2 So what I did was I made a bit of a 

3 change to the format, that we can stay with or 

4 we could change. It is really your choice, 

5 and if you would -- just by way of brief 

6 explanation of what was done, go to after the 

7 cover memo, you will see that right at the 

8 very top of page 2 of 39, there is the SC&A 

9 finding. 

10 SC&A's findings, as you know, are 

11 all contained in a great deal of detail in our 

12 report dated may 2007. So this is where 

13 everything sort of begins from SC&A's 

14 perspective. 

15 What I did was I said, okay, I took 

16 each finding, gave it a major heading, and 

17 right underneath the bold heading, SC&A 

18 finding 4.1. By the way, there really are 

19 five findings. There's 4.1 through 4.5. 

20 Each finding has a number of sub21 findings. So they are clustered, and that 

22 turns out to be a convenience that I am going 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 11

1 to take advantage of today by starting in the 

2 cluster. 

3 For example, the first item really 

4 deals with uranium, and all the issues 

5 surrounding the bioassay sampling, the 

6 milligram per liter issue, and enrichment and 

7 recycled uranium. 

8 So it turns out, I would like to 

9 start in the general and then make a specific 

10 for each issue. Anyway, to get back to the 

11 format, this format -- I took it basically 

12 from lessons learned from our procedures 

13 meetings, where we identified the issue. In 

14 this case, it is issue 4.1-1, and it is 

15 described. 

16 You may have noticed that I 

17 describe it in a little bit more detail than 

18 it was in the original matrix, so that we know 

19 a little bit more about what that particular 

20 sub-issue is about. So it helps. 

21 Immediately below that, you will 

22 see a row called "Draft NIOSH Response." This 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 12

1 is the original response to our issue that was 

2 provided, and it goes way back. 

3 And below that, I have extracted 

4 from the previous work group meetings. On 

5 10/27/07 we had a work group meeting, about a 

6 year ago, and this comes directly from that. 

7 And all that is really here is just the action 

8 items. It lists, okay, the work group said 

9 NIOSH would like you to do action items 1 

10 through 7. 

11 The next row below that is a 

12 summary of NIOSH's response to those seven 

13 items, and in large respect there is either 

14 response to it or it makes reference to 

15 something that was placed on the O: drive. 

16 That effectively -- now just 

17 notice, we are just talking about the very 

18 first sub-issue, issue 4.1. Flip to the next 

19 page, and there is a little bit more 

20 supplementary material related to NIOSH's 

21 response to directives given on 10/24/07. 

22 At that point, at the top of the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 13

1 second page where you see 5 and 7, it says 

2 there, that sort of is the end of the process 

3 that took place up to and prior to the March 

4 26, 2008 meeting. 

5 Now starting with the next row, 

6 which is labeled March 26, 2008 Work Group 

7 Meeting, that is the material I prepared. Now 

8 I did something a little different here, 

9 because I felt I needed to do it for me, and I 

10 suspect it might be helpful to you also. 

11 For this particular issue there was 

12 quite a bit of discussion held during the 

13 meeting, and so I tried as best I could to 

14 capture it. There may have been 50 pages. 

15 The transcript was over 300 pages, and there 

16 may have been as much as 50 pages dedicated to 

17 just this subject. As I said, I wanted to 

18 make sure that we captured it. 

19 So this is something you haven't 

20 done in the past, tried to capture the essence 

21 of what was discussed. Usually, we limit our 

22 matrices to just action items and O: drives. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 14

1 But I felt that it was important to me to set 

2 the stage, and I left it in. Especially since 

3 we haven't met in six months, I thought you 

4 might find this useful. 

5 Then on the very bottom -- and this 

6 is going to be for every one of these issues 

7 that we talk about, in bold is what I -- 

8 again, this comes right out of the matrix. 

9 There is nothing here that is my -- in other 

10 words, there is nothing you are looking at 

11 here that is SC&A's opinion materia. This is 

12 material that just tries to capture what was 

13 in the matrix. 

14 Now my plan would be, by the way, 

15 that below on this page 2 here -- below, we 

16 are going to start a new row, and it is going 

17 to be called October 28, 2008 Meeting, and 

18 just keep it rolling. 

19 So that sort of sets the table on 

20 how -- if everyone is comfortable with that, 

21 that would be my plan. 

22 MR. MORRIS: Excuse me, John. If 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 15

1 there are questions or opinions that would be 

2 different from your assessment of the 50 

3 pages? 

4 MR. MAURO: Absolutely. In fact, 

5 when I sent this out, the cover memo dated 

6 October 14th -- so it wasn't that long ago -- 

7 I indicated please, if I did not faithfully 

8 capture -- because when you read the 

9 transcripts, especially the version I got -- I 

10 don't know who provided it. Ted, you provided 

11 it to me -- it was not official yet. It was 

12 still crude, and I'm treating it as a control 

13 document, since it is not -- in fact, you 

14 know, I had it at home, but I just used it for 

15 my purposes. 

16 I did the best I can to read it. 

17 And so, yes, anything in here that you feel is 

18 a misrepresentation, incomplete, missing 

19 something important, absolutely, let me know. 

20 And then mechanistically -- this is really 

21 maybe one of the things Mark is concerned 

22 about. We spend more time about form than 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 16

1 substance. Mechanistically -- and correctly 

2 so. I mean, I know on the procedures work, we 

3 spent a lot of time getting our procedures 

4 together. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Nonetheless, I 

6 think it is important that we don't let things 

7 slip through the crack, and this will help us 

8 track things. 

9 It looks like you are moving toward 

10 something that looks very much like what the 

11 Procedures Work Group is doing in terms of 

12 capturing the results of each meeting and the 

13 responses back and forth. It is probably too 

14 late to convert the system to that. 

15 MR. MAURO: I am just doing that. 

16 Quite frankly, I realize there may be -- the 

17 day may come when you would want to do that, 

18 but right now I have to say I found it 

19 impossible to work with the columns and the 

20 other approach and still capture, do the 

21 things that I felt needed to be done by way of 

22 telling the story. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 17

1 I mean, the columns would go down 

2 for pages. 

3 MR. ROLFES: This does look a lot 

4 better, I think. 

5 CHAIR CLAWSON: Well, and something 

6 else, too. When asked a question, I guess 

7 John talking about this, we will be able to go 

8 back through. It will make it a cleaner way 

9 to be able to work our way back. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, this is what 

11 the Procedures Work Group has done. John is 

12 very familiar with that, because he helped 

13 develop that system also, and it does 

14 something similar to this. You can get the 

15 big picture with an overview or you can dig in 

16 and get the meeting-by-meeting process and 

17 progress. 

18 MR. MAURO: The time sequence is 

19 tracked vertically down the page here. 

20 Okay. With that, what I did was, 

21 realizing the sizes of this, I was starting to 

22 see, well, this is a useful archive document. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 18

1 In other words, this in effect represents the 

2 history of the work group meetings. 

3 I said, but for the purpose of this 

4 meeting, it might be helpful to try to boil 

5 things down a little further, which is what I 

6 did, and I've made some copies of this. No 

7 one has seen this before. It has not been PA 

8 cleared. Neither has this. No one has what I 

9 am about to hand out. 

10 I have 10 copies of these. These 

11 may not be enough, but perhaps you can share. 

12 I'll hold onto one myself. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: You don't have 

14 that electronically? 

15 MR. MAURO: I do. I have it on the 

16 stick, in fact. I was hoping to project it. 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can you pass the 

18 stick around. 

19 MR. MAURO: Yes, sure. You guys 

20 got it. Maybe you can load it and then 

21 transfer it to everybody. That might be a 

22 way. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 19

1 MR. KATZ: For people on the phone, 

2 we are just getting some materials ready, but 

3 let me just acknowledge. Jim Neton has joined 

4 us. Jim, do you have something? 

5 MR. NETON: I am conflicted at 

6 Fernald. 

7 MR. KATZ: Conflicted at Fernald. 

8 And why don't I just check to see if Arjun or 

9 Hans has had a chance to join us yet. 

10 MR. BEHLING: This is Hans, and I 

11 have joined you. 

12 MR. KATZ: Okay, welcome, Hans. 

13 MR. BEHLING: Good morning. 

14 MR. KATZ: And how about Phil 

15 Schofield? Phil, have you joined us? I'm 

16 sorry, Hans, can you just address, are you 

17 conflicted? 

18 MR. BEHLING: No, I'm not 

19 conflicted. 

20 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

21 MR. MAKHIJANI: Hi, can you hear 

22 me? This is Arjun. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 20

1 MR. KATZ: Arjun, welcome. 

2 MR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you. 

3 MR. KATZ: And can you just address 

4 whether you are conflicted? 

5 MR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I am 

6 conflicted, yes. 

7 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

8 MR. MAURO: Okay. Mark Griffon has 

9 -- 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't see 

11 anything prior to this that is related on this 

12 document. I am just saying, if you wanted to 

13 share it, I think you can share it. 

14 MR. KATZ: Let Emily do that then. 

15 MR. MAURO: Mark has it, and is 

16 going to electronically forward it, so you 

17 will have it. This again is for the 

18 convenience of this meeting. 

19 I would like to start -- first of 

20 all, I would like to point out that the way in 

21 which the tasks, the issues, are grouped are 

22 by groups of five. You will see on the very 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 21

1 first page of this action item matrix I have 

2 issue 4.1, your analysis data for uranium, and 

3 underneath that all of the subparts. 

4 As you flip through, you will see 

5 next is 4.2, which has to do with K-65. So 

6 what I would like to do is go through each of 

7 these. First, I would like to talk about this 

8 first cluster called urine data -- urinalysis 

9 data for uranium, and sort of paint the big 

10 picture of where I think we are, and then we 

11 can move into the finer granularity on various 

12 action items and actions taken related to that 

13 subject. 

14 Stepping back and going through the 

15 history, I went through both transcripts. 

16 First of all, let me tell you how important it 

17 is to go through the transcripts, especially 

18 with a lot of time passing by, and to sort of 

19 get everything that was discussed. 

20 With regard to uranium, a good way 

21 to think about it is, to start off, the heart 

22 of the internal dose reconstruction for all 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 22

1 workers at Fernald for internal exposure is 

2 the milligram per liter measurements of 

3 uranium in urine. 

4 Going from the general to the 

5 specific, one of the most fundamental 

6 questions -- points is that NIOSH's position 

7 is that over 90 percent of the workers 

8 throughout the history of Fernald had such 

9 measurements, at least one per year. That's 

10 very important, because that becomes the rock 

11 you are standing on. 

12 Now one of the things that came up 

13 was, well, it's important that we confirm 

14 that. That is, confirm it with respect to -- 

15 though you have 90 percent, is it possible 

16 there might be some group or groups of people 

17 at different locations, different categories, 

18 different time periods where there is a 

19 paucity of data and, therefore, there might be 

20 some holes. 

21 So in order to make sure that it is 

22 complete, one of the things that SC&A was 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 23

1 mandated to do during the last work group 

2 meeting was to go in and sample the database, 

3 the HIS-20 database, to determine if there 

4 are, in fact, any holes in the data, you know, 

5 the completeness question. 

6 Even though that is one of the more 

7 recent things that we did -- we are going to 

8 get to other ones -- I felt that that was -- 

9 in the order and way in which you think about 

10 a problem on a hierarchy, that was like -- 

11 that's a big ticket item. That is, if we 

12 could get by that, then the other things can 

13 be addressed a little more easily. 

14 So what I have is another handout 

15 that talks about where SC&A is in answering 

16 that question, because we think that that 

17 question, completeness, is fundamental to even 

18 moving on to talk about anything else related 

19 to internal dosimetry for uranium. 

20 Think about it this way. When I 

21 mentioned uranium, I am really talking about 

22 unenriched, enriched, and recycled uranium and 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 24

1 the ability to reconstruct doses. As you will 

2 see, the heart of it starts with having a 

3 complete database on milligrams per liter in 

4 the urine. 

5 So I have another handout. Again, 

6 this has not been PA cleared, and I'll tell 

7 you what it is, once everybody gets a copy. 

8 It's on there, too. Everything is on the 

9 stick. 

10 It was my intention, by the way, to 

11 project all this on the wall, but we can't do 

12 that. So we'll work with hard copy or 

13 electronic copy. 

14 SC&A prepared a sampling plan that 

15 was approved relatively recently. I would say 

16 a week ago, and we have been working on it. 

17 But I think it is important to understand what 

18 the sampling plan is and what it is going to 

19 give you, and how it will help the work group 

20 make judgments pertaining to the completeness 

21 of the database. 

22 I have a three-page handout that I 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 25

1 believe everyone should have right now. 

2 The first page is what I call the -

3 - and you have seen this before in the little 

4 form. You know, the sampling plan was 

5 distributed to the work group, and it was a 

6 big statistical description of how things are 

7 going to be done, and some tables that look a 

8 lot like this. But I repackaged it for the 

9 purposes of this meeting and put it into what 

10 I consider to be something a little bit more 

11 understandable for me, and took away some of 

12 the -- lots of the statistical descriptions, 

13 and boiled it down to what I would say common 

14 sense language and what is it we are doing. 

15 We basically -- using the 

16 collective judgment of SC&A, we said, listen, 

17 if you were to sort of parse out operations at 

18 Fernald over time and over different kinds of 

19 facilities and in different types of work 

20 categories, if you could demonstrate that the 

21 records are fairly complete for each of these 

22 strata, for example, the statement could be 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 26

1 made that we sampled the pilot plant, the 

2 workers that were in the pilot plant or the 

3 workers that were in the Plant 1, and we 

4 grouped plants 2 and 3 -- if you can go in and 

5 sample it and go grab people -- now these are 

6 people that we sampling -- that worked there 

7 from 1954 to 1967, and we grabbed the records 

8 of those people who worked in the plant -- 

9 MR. MAKHIJANI: John, can I 

10 interrupt? 

11 MR. MAURO: Sure. 

12 MR. MAKHIJANI: the dates are 

13 stated erroneously there as '54 to '67. It 

14 should be '51 to '67. 

15 MR. MAURO: Oh, okay. I was 

16 wondering about that difference. 

17 MR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, except for 

18 plant 750. The dates got mixed up. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think what 

20 happened is you changed the order of the 

21 plants from your previous one, but not the 

22 order of the dates. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 27

1 MR. MAURO: Ah, there you go. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: As well as the 

3 periods. 

4 MR. MAURO: Okay, thanks, Arjun. 

5 I'm sorry for that mistake. 

6 So over that time period -- and by 

7 the way, I am going to -- as a preface, this 

8 is our plan. Now when you go into the -- we 

9 are into the database now. I have been 

10 talking to the folks who have been diving into 

11 this massive amount of material, and our 

12 objective is to do this. But based on our 

13 previous experience, sometimes it has to 

14 evolve a little bit because of certain 

15 constraints. But this is basically what we are 

16 trying to accomplish. 

17 So we go into -- as I was point 

18 out, let's say we go into -- let's say we are 

19 able to, and we believe we are able to, go 

20 into identify workers, claimants. Okay? 

21 Claimants that worked in Plant 1 in 1954 

22 through '67, and we say, okay, here is our 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 28

1 population of workers. 

2 We are going to go in and randomly 

3 sample from those claimants, and then we are 

4 going to see how many of them have -- each 

5 year, how many bioassay samples for each 

6 worker for each year in that time period. 

7 So we've constructed the strata 

8 this way, because we feel that these are -- 

9 different facilities, different job categories 

10 and different time periods have meaning in 

11 terms of things being different. 

12 So if you are able to capture a 

13 representative sample or if we get a good feel 

14 for the completeness of the data in each one 

15 of these strata, we would be able to walk away 

16 and make a statement regarding the 

17 completeness of the overall dataset to support 

18 those reconstructions. 

19 Let's go to the second page. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: A quick question. 

21 I notice the millwright category has 

22 disappeared in here in your data. Is there a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 29

1 reason for that? 

2 MR. MAURO: Good question. I don't 

3 know the answer. I will have to go back and 

4 check that out. It may have been an error on 

5 my part, as I did with the dates when I 

6 prepared this or maybe it was determined that 

7 that would collapse within one of the other 

8 categories. I can't say. But we will 

9 certainly look into that. 

10 CHAIR CLAWSON: John, also this 

11 other job category B looks like we've got an 

12 awful lot tied up into that one. 

13 MR. MAURO: That's correct. That's 

14 where we are right now. We have that. In 

15 fact, in the process of preparing this work 

16 plan, we had a little bit of interaction not 

17 only with the Board but also at NIOSH, and 

18 this is the outcome. 

19 We would be the first to admit 

20 that, once we move through this process, when 

21 we come out of the back end of the process and 

22 have the results, there will probably be a lot 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 30

1 of questions like that; and we will know the 

2 doability, where things really can't be done 

3 and where more needs to be done, but we've got 

4 to start somewhere. So you're right. 

5 CHAIR CLAWSON: But the only thing 

6 that I was bringing up, John -- and this is 

7 Brad -- is, you know, I guess my big one that 

8 I was really worried about was labor pool. 

9 But looking at all of these, they are all 

10 pretty well roving people that rove from place 

11 to place, etcetera, except the laundry. 

12 MR. MAURO: Okay. 

13 CHAIR CLAWSON: And that was -- You 

14 know, I can understand how come they were in 

15 that group, because they would go throughout 

16 this facility, different places all the time, 

17 except it seems like the laundry kind of sat 

18 in one place. 

19 So I was just looking at that, but 

20 you know, I don't know. Maybe they went out 

21 and picked up stuff or something else. 

22 MR. MAURO: No. The feedback you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 31

1 are giving me now is what we need, because we 

2 are doing the work now, and if we can deal 

3 with those issues as we enter into the 

4 process, we will. 

5 MR. BEATTY: Excuse me, John, for 

6 interrupting. This is Ray Beatty. You 

7 mentioned the laundry workers being stationary 

8 somewhat. 

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON; Yes, that it 

10 what I was just assuming. 

11 MR. BEATTY: For a point of 

12 clarification, in the later years, especially 

13 in remediation years, they were assigned out 

14 in the project as well to go around picking up 

15 the laundry at what we call satellite 

16 stations. They did not just stay in a laundry 

17 room. 

18 CHAIR CLAWSON: Yes. I just -- 

19 What I was looking at -- 

20 MR. BEATTY: The potential exposure 

21 would have been -- 

22 CHAIR CLAWSON: Okay. So that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 32

1 answers that question. 

2 MEMBER PRESLEY; This is Bob 

3 Presley. At other sites, you generally had a 

4 truck driver and somebody from the laundry 

5 that would go around on a periodic schedule 

6 and pick up laundry. Yes, there is a 

7 potential, very much so, because some of the 

8 dirtiest things are in the laundry. 

9 CHAIR CLAWSON: So that may take in 

10 and incorporate all of those into that. 

11 MR. MAURO: It might. That doesn't 

12 mean that we don't need more granularity. In 

13 fact, we were in the situation in one of those 

14 where you had to make tradeoffs. How granular 

15 do you go? It is basically our estimate that 

16 it is going to be one or two work hours per 

17 person, and the more we add, the more 

18 granularity, the longer it is going to take. 

19 So we thought that we ought to 

20 strike a balance where we get some meaningful 

21 information. That doesn't mean we won't go 

22 back in again, if we need more granularity. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 33

1 The important point, though, is 

2 that -- remember where we are right now. We 

3 are talking about the issue number one, and we 

4 are saying that one of the most important 

5 things we need to accomplish under issue 

6 number one, which deals with bioassay sampling 

7 of uranium, is its completeness, because that 

8 goes really much to the heart of any SEC 

9 issue. 

10 What we are implementing as we 

11 speak is a review of the dataset for 

12 completeness purposes, and this is the way we 

13 are doing it, by creating this matrix of -- or 

14 strata of these categories of plants, job 

15 categories and time periods. 

16 Now what Harry Chmelynski, who is 

17 on the line -- correct me if I'm wrong. We 

18 are one page number 2. What I have prepared 

19 on page number 2 -- this might have also been 

20 contained in our original work plan, but in 

21 different form, but I have boiled it down to a 

22 little simpler form for my purposes, is that, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 34

1 okay, what does that mean, we are going to go 

2 sample from each one of those strata? How 

3 many people are you going to sample? 

4 Well, it turns out that right now 

5 our plan is for -- By the way, we added the 

6 pilot plant. In the previous work plan, we 

7 did not have the pilot plant. When we started 

8 work on this, we all looked at each other and 

9 said, how come the pilot plant isn't in there? 

10 So we put it in. 

11 So if you go back to the original 

12 plan, you will see that the pilot plant wasn't 

13 in there, and we judged that we had better put 

14 that in. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's in. 

16 MR. MAURO: I don't think it was in 

17 the original one. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, maybe there 

19 was an earlier version of this. 

20 MR. MAURO: Well, the pilot plant 

21 is in now. It's covered. Okay. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is the August 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 35

1 version, and it was in there. 

2 MR. MAURO: And it was in there 

3 then. Well, there may have been some back and 

4 forth. But what you are looking at right now 

5 is what we are doing right now. That doesn't 

6 mean we don't need to change it, fix it, make 

7 it better, simplify it, but -- 

8 Now it turns out that -- Let's talk 

9 about ID number 2, which is Plant Number 1 

10 during time period number 1, which is 1951 to 

11 '67. We are only going to sample three 

12 people. We are going to go in and pull all 

13 the records for a randomly selected three 

14 claimants. 

15 In other words, we are going to 

16 have a list of claimants that we are going to 

17 do the best we can to sort according to these 

18 strata, and there will be presumably a lot of 

19 workers that were in Plant 1 in that time 

20 period, claimants. Then we are going to 

21 sample them. 

22 Then we are going to make -- From 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 36

1 that, we have our folks then go into their 

2 records, year after year after year, and look 

3 at their records, and we are going to download 

4 what bioassay sample, but also other data. So 

5 it's not just urine data, but it is basically 

6 what are the data available for those people, 

7 and create a database. 

8 Now so in effect, what we are 

9 saying is these are the number of people we 

10 are going to sample. I think it comes to 

11 about -- if you add them all up, it comes to 

12 about 150 or something like that. So in 

13 effect, about 150 people are going to be 

14 sampled, and they are going to be parsed into 

15 these different boxes. 

16 Now -- and we are going to download 

17 all of the bioassay and other data pertinent 

18 to that person by year, and then create this 

19 database. 

20 In the end, most importantly -- the 

21 next page is the results. What this basically 

22 says is, when we are done, we are going to be 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 37

1 able to say for -- the best way I think about 

2 it is we are going to be able to make a 

3 statement associated with the numbers. 

4 We are 95 percent confident that at 

5 least 20 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent, 

6 whatever the percent is, of the workers in 

7 that strata have at least one bioassay sample 

8 per year, at least one milligram per liter 

9 measurement per year. 

10 So that we could say what 

11 percentage. It may turn out it's 90 percent. 

12 We may be able to make a statement. It 

13 depends what the results come back when we do 

14 our sampling. So we will be able to make a 

15 statistical statement regarding each strata on 

16 the level of confidence that at least X 

17 percent of the people in that strata had at 

18 least one, two, three bioassay samples. 

19 Now from that -- Now if it turns 

20 out the number is very high -- let's say we 

21 could say that we are 90 percent certain that 

22 80 percent of the workers have at least one 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 38

1 sample. Well, I mean, intuitively that ain't 

2 bad, and you probably can not only reconstruct 

3 the doses for those workers, the ones that 

4 have the samples, and the ones that perhaps 

5 may not have it, which based on that sample 

6 would be not that many, you could build a co7 worker model. 

8 The co-worker model, of course, is 

9 a judgment call. For any given person that 

10 doesn't have data, you could use 90 percent 

11 value or 50 percent value, the full 

12 distribution. These are judgment calls that 

13 we consider to be non-SEC issues. 

14 The SEC issue is whether or not 

15 that particular strata has sufficient data to 

16 build a co-worker model or not. So this is 

17 the philosophy we are operating under. 

18 MR. NETON: I just have a general 

19 question. This is Jim Neton. 

20 The general concept seems to be 

21 that you are approaching it that all of these 

22 strata were required to be monitored in the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 39

1 first place. What happens if you get to the 

2 point where you have an administrative group 

3 that, by your determination, does not have 

4 sufficient bioassays to develop a co-worker 

5 model? 

6 What does that really mean at the 

7 end of the day? But a judgment call has to be 

8 made, whether those people really required to 

9 be monitored. There is a gradation of 

10 monitoring in all these work groups. I can 

11 guarantee that. 

12 So you've spent a lot of time here 

13 showing these strata, but really, it seems 

14 like it should be front end loaded and say 

15 which groups really needed to be monitored 

16 that had the highest exposure, so you can have 

17 some sort of a valid co-worker bounding model. 

18 Where this is pushing it is to have 

19 something like 15 different co-worker models. 

20 I'm not sure if -- that's just my opinion. 

21 MR. MAURO: Well, I don't want to 

22 leave the impression that this is a co-worker 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 40

1 model study. What this really is is a -- 

2 MR. NETON: Well, it's what you are 

3 talking about here. 

4 MR. MAURO: Well, no. It goes 

5 there. It could get us there. But what it 

6 really asks is the completeness question, 

7 because there is a statement made, and it is 

8 an important statement, that over 90 percent 

9 of the workers were sampled, had at least one 

10 bioassay sampling per year. It's a very 

11 important statement. 

12 The mandate that we were given -- 

13 that was at the last meeting. Pulled it right 

14 out of the transcripts. And the mandate we 

15 were given is let's go check that, and we came 

16 up with this plan. 

17 So when we are done, you're right, 

18 we may find one of these strata -- in fact, we 

19 may find it's difficult to get any data for a 

20 given; strata, and we don't know that. 

21 That may mean that we have to say, 

22 okay, what do you do when, in fact, a given 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 41

1 strata really doesn't have any data, for 

2 whatever reason. Maybe they didn't need to be 

3 monitored, or maybe there is a problem. But 

4 at least we are going to know that. I mean, 

5 that's just first things. 

6 We are going to know where there 

7 may be people that weren't -- didn't have 

8 bioassay data. 

9 MR. NETON: That would come out of 

10 the dose reconstructions. I mean, you have 

11 200 dose reconstructions. You have the job 

12 titles for all of them. You are going to have 

13 monitoring data or you don't. 

14 Then the judgment call has to be 

15 made: This was an administrative worker. 

16 Does the co-worker model that reconstructs 

17 from all the universe of monitored workers 

18 adequately bound this particular dose? It 

19 just seems like there is a lot of effort here 

20 that I'm not sure what -- 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Is there a co22 worker model on the table? I don't think -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 42

1 There is a uranium co-worker model now? 

2 MR. ROLFES: There is. Correct. 

3 It wasn't available in the beginning. 

4 MR. NETON: That's my point, 

5 though. So then you are -- 

6 MR. ROLFES: It was sort of like 

7 the Rocky Flats, that we didn't have enough 

8 data to do individual dose reconstruction for 

9 everyone. Then we were testing to see if you 

10 really had enough data for all individuals. 

11 With the Rocky Flats, it wasn't 

12 perfect, of course, but when we went through, 

13 we found certain years that were limited, but 

14 we often had explanations. So that fell out, 

15 and that was fine. 

16 MR. NETON: Right. That is my 

17 general question. We tried to relay that in 

18 the comments. 

19 MR. MAURO: No, no. I guess I'd 

20 look at it like a dictionary. You say, 

21 listen, this is what we have. In other words, 

22 best we can tell, this is how complete a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 43

1 record we have for all these different strata. 

2 MR. NETON: Exactly. But at the 

3 end of the day, what do you do with that? 

4 That's my point. 

5 MR. MAURO: Right. 

6 MR. NETON: I mean, you stop short 

7 here saying, well, we'll see what the 

8 completeness is for these 15 different 

9 categories. So what does that really mean? 

10 You're going to spend a lot of time doing 

11 that. 

12 MR. MAURO: Well, does that mean 

13 that it shouldn't be done? 

14 MR. NETON: I don't know. 

15 MEMBER PRESLEY: That's what I'm 

16 wondering. Should it be done? I mean, you 

17 are going to spend a tremendous amount of time 

18 and a tremendous amount of money, and you are 

19 going to come up with an upper bounding, the 

20 level up here that is going to be tacked on 

21 for everybody, and I'm just wondering if you 

22 shouldn't go in there and pick out what you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 44

1 consider or what we consider as to be the most 

2 exposed people and start there. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: SC&A is not going 

4 to come up with any upper bound, first of all. 

5 That is not their job. 

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON; Let's go to the 

7 statement that was said. Everybody was 

8 sampled. NIOSH, prove to us -- 

9 MR. ROLFES: As we have indicated, 

10 90 percent or greater than 90 percent of the 

11 people at Fernald did participate in the 

12 uranium bioassay program. The people that had 

13 the highest potential for exposure, such as 

14 chemical operators, were some of the 

15 individuals who participated in the most 

16 frequent sampling program. 

17 Some of those people were sampled 

18 as frequently as multiple times per day. 

19 Other people that were less likely to be 

20 exposed were only typically sampled on an 

21 annual basis. 

22 We did develop a white paper on a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 45

1 uranium intake model, and at the last meeting 

2 I had forgotten that we had done this, because 

3 it was roughly produced about a year ago. 

4 So I've got an e-mail from November 

5 7, '07, which has a copy of the white paper 

6 for Fernald or the uranium intake. I don't 

7 have access to the O: drive right at this 

8 moment. So I can't verify that it is there, 

9 but I do have a copy of it in my notes. 

10 MR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun. 

11 Could I make a comment here? 

12 You know, we are required -- you 

13 know, a completeness check is an important 

14 part of an SEC review. This is not a dose 

15 reconstruction review. 

16 The other thing is, yes, it's true 

17 that some categories had lower exposure 

18 potential than others, but you know, for 

19 production and maintenance workers it is not a 

20 priori a given that Plant 1 had more exposure 

21 potential than Plant 2 or millwrights had more 

22 than carpenters. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 46

1 What this allows you to establish, 

2 besides looking at completeness, is it allows 

3 you to establish whether there is a category 

4 of workers that you can select, a major co5 worker model that you can be sure will be 

6 bounding in an SEC context. 

7 So I think this kind of exercise is 

8 pretty useful. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Mark, can you tell 

10 us what the file name is for that white paper? 

11 I'm on the O: drive right now. 

12 MR. ROLFES: It is FENP Urine Co13 Worker Study White Paper. 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, here it is. 

15 It is on the O: drive. 

16 MR. ROLFES: Should have been 

17 placed there last year sometime, November, I 

18 believe, is what the date should have been, 

19 November 2007. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON; I guess when I was 

21 going through the O: drive, I had noticed that 

22 there were no Excel -- Often in these co-
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 47

1 worker models, I look for the Excel 

2 spreadsheets that have the by year, the 

3 distribution's years, etcetera. This is just 

4 the white paper. 

5 MR. ROLFES: Let me open it up, and 

6 check to see whether it has those tables. 

7 Yes, the 50th and 84th percentiles are 

8 incorporated within that white paper by year. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: I see that. 

10 MR. MAURO: Well, all I can say is 

11 that we are only one week into the program. 

12 We could kill it. It's your call. 

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON; This keeps 

14 coming up every time. 

15 MR. MAURO: To me, putting this to 

16 bed is going to cost 200 work hours at $100 a 

17 work hour. 

18 MR. MORRIS: From my perspective -- 

19 This is Bob Morris, I'm sorry -- the problem 

20 in the structure of your plan is that you 

21 haven't followed the classical data quality 

22 objectives process where you actually define 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 48

1 the decision to be made ahead of the work; 

2 because now we are -- the reason they define 

3 the DQO process, which is that you want to 

4 have a conclusion that you know what your 

5 answer is going to be as the basis for your 

6 design, and I don't see that you -- at the 

7 end, you are wondering, well, what do we do 

8 with it. 

9 MR. MAURO: I hear what you are 

10 saying, and I understand the DQO process, but 

11 I think, when you sample data in an array like 

12 this, which captures the universe of workers 

13 without giving any special weight or make any 

14 pre-decisions, the data then speaks to you 

15 It's the first step in the process. 

16 Okay, what does this data tell us? 

17 MR. MORRIS: Okay, then in this 

18 context, your 200-hour study is a preliminary 

19 study that would go on to feed a second study. 

20 MR. MAURO: Not necessarily. It 

21 may turn out that the outcome would be just 

22 about every one of these strata -- it was 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 49

1 written to have a lot of data. In other 

2 words, every single strata we have cut into 

3 and we have sampled from. There is a lot of 

4 data, and it certainly is a judgment call how 

5 much is enough, but it may turn out that 

6 everyone will agree, from that dataset and 

7 that strata, you could build a co-worker 

8 model. 

9 In other words, what we are saying 

10 is that it may turn out that everyone was 

11 sampled, but based on the sampling, the best 

12 we could do is say we are 90 percent confident 

13 -- 95 percent confident that 50 percent of the 

14 workers have at least one bioassay sample. 

15 MR. MORRIS: Okay, but don't 

16 forget, it's not the question of you could 

17 build a co-worker model. There is a co-worker 

18 model. 

19 MR. MAURO: Oh, okay. 

20 MR. MORRIS: At some point you've 

21 got to say maybe you've approached it from the 

22 wrong end. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 50

1 MR. MAURO: Well, I could reverse 

2 it and say how do we know your co-worker model 

3 is going to serve our purposes well? 

4 MR. MORRIS: Fair enough. 

5 MR. MAURO: This will do that. 

6 MR. NETON: Well, it's always been 

7 an issue that the co-worker model assigned 

8 95th percentile, and we have to establish then 

9 that the highest exposed workers were actually 

10 monitored and captured with that model. I 

11 think that's the approach that needs to be 

12 evaluated, not whether laundry workers were 

13 monitored more frequently than chemical 

14 operators, more frequently than work truck 

15 drivers. 

16 I mean, to me, I don't know what 

17 that really shows you, other than a priori I 

18 can guarantee you that there is going to be a 

19 stratification of monitored frequencies in 

20 those populations. But were the highest 

21 exposed workers monitored? 

22 What you are going to end up with 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 51

1 is 15 co-worker models, and you are going to 

2 end up reducing the dose. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: You can still use 

4 the overall. 

5 MR. MAURO: This is really a 

6 completeness issue. That was the driver, 

7 completeness. 

8 MR. NETON: But, see, even if you 

9 still -- if you end up using the overall 

10 model, then you are really not proving 

11 anything other than the fact that laundry 

12 workers are less frequently monitored than 

13 chemical operators. 

14 Have you captured the highest 

15 exposed workers in the co-worker model that 

16 NIOSH proposed to you? That's really the 

17 question. 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: I would definitely 

19 start there. I would say -- 

20 MR. NETON: That's a non-starter. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: The question is 

22 how do you -- I mean, I think you have to use 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 52

1 a certain amount of judgment, but start by -- 

2 MR. NETON: But, Mark, you are 

3 going to be there anyway. You are going to 

4 have all these data, and you are going to say, 

5 gee, there's less monitoring data for people 

6 who sort of a priori appear to be less 

7 exposed. So now, let's go back and say, well, 

8 gee, where are the highest exposed -- were the 

9 people who were frequently sampled the highest 

10 exposed workers anyway? 

11 I don't know. It would seem like 

12 you have to make an a priori judgment up front 

13 that there were certain categories of workers 

14 that were more highly exposed. 

15 MR. MAURO: Now let's say it turns 

16 out you have decided maintenance workers 

17 during a certain time period. We are going to 

18 have that, and now we are going to have 

19 whether they were sampled. We are going to 

20 have their results. It's all going to be 

21 there. 

22 MR. NETON: And at the end of the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 53

1 day, the question is were the maintenance 

2 workers the highest exposed workers or the 

3 chemical operators the highest exposed workers 

4 You almost have to look at the values. 

5 MR. MAURO: But, you see, that is 

6 sort of like a dictionary. I mean, it's sort 

7 of like it's all here. Then you pose those 

8 questions: Does this -- for example, let's 

9 say there are certain assumptions you made in 

10 your co-worker model. The data will say, are 

11 those assumptions you have made consistent 

12 with what we are finding in the sampling 

13 thing? That is, I guess, how I look at it. 

14 That is one of the values of having 

15 -- 

16 MR. NETON: I don't know. You are 

17 proposing numbers, not -- I'm not sure if the 

18 sampling strategy there would reflect the 

19 values. You've got a sampling plan -- 

20 MR. MAURO: I want to drop the 

21 numbers in, too, not only say, yes, he was 

22 monitored, but what were the results. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 54

1 MR. NETON: Well, I'm not sure that 

2 the statistical basis of the results would be 

3 sufficient to come to any conclusions. You 

4 build a sampling plan based on sampling 

5 frequency, which has nothing to do with -- 

6 MR. MAURO: That is correct. This 

7 is solely completeness. 

8 MR. NETON: So what do workers 

9 mean? I don't know. 

10 MR. MAURO: I mean, while we are 

11 there and we have the person's file in front 

12 of us, and we are counting -- We looked up the 

13 HIS-20. It's all there, right along the line. 

14 We have every measurement, every sample taken 

15 by that person on that date. 

16 MR. NETON: I understand. 

17 MR. MAURO: And it's all there. It 

18 was our sense that the idea of creating a 

19 completeness sampling plan and downloading the 

20 data in the form that we have it here would 

21 add value and help the work group make 

22 judgments regarding it. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 55

1 MR. NETON: That is the work 

2 group's call. 

3 MR. MAURO: And this is what we 

4 came up with, and quite frankly, we have 

5 accepted it as our own in terms of, yes, I 

6 think that by doing this, when we are done, 

7 there is going to be a lot of information here 

8 that we know is going to help us answer 

9 certain questions, and then may also help us 

10 get a richer understanding of where there may 

11 be some problems, problems that we are not 

12 aware of. Arjun, yes? 

13 MR. MAKHIJANI: Just for clarity, 

14 at the present stage we do intend to compile 

15 the measurements as well. For those who are 

16 on the HIS-20 database, this will be very 

17 straightforward. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: But my point is the 

19 sampling frequency is based on numbers of 

20 samples, not on the doses, the magnitude. 

21 MR. MAURO: That's correct. That's 

22 correct. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 56

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: So unless you are 

2 assuming -- and it may not be a bad assumption 

3 -- that the sampling frequency must be related 

4 to the potential exposures, which it probably 

5 ought to be, but you don't know that a priori, 

6 I guess, or you might want to look at that. 

7 But the question is do you have enough samples 

8 to answer the second question about doses. 

9 MR. MAURO: Maybe not. Maybe not. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Versus simply 

11 sampling the frequency. So that would -- I 

12 think it goes to Robert's issue, is if you 

13 haven't decided how you are going to use the 

14 data, how do you know you have constructed it 

15 properly? 

16 MR. MORRIS: Exactly. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Technically, you 

18 can only answer the first question. 

19 MR. MAURO: I agree with you. Our 

20 objective and our design was completeness. 

21 MR. BEHLING: Can I interrupt for a 

22 second? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 57

1 MR. MAURO: Sure. 

2 MR. BEHLING: This is Hans Behling. 

3 I sent to you yesterday by way of a fax a 

4 document that has the issue of control groups, 

5 which we have talked about personally, but I 

6 think some of the questions that have been 

7 raised in the last few minutes can be 

8 answered. 

9 If you have that copy available, 

10 maybe during the first break you can discuss 

11 this issue and then bring it up again. But 

12 there are several pages that define various 

13 groups of individuals based on plants' 

14 location and their assignments and their 

15 recommended frequency by which they are to be 

16 monitored that measures everything from the 

17 service quarter, laundry people annually 

18 garage people annually, cafeteria annually, 

19 and then it goes to people like plant A 

20 monthly, higher plant monthly, etcetera. 

21 It even gives you the exact numbers 

22 of people who were being requested to submit 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 58

1 their urine sample for analysis. If you take 

2 a look at that, there is a total of five 

3 pages. It actually identifies the dates and 

4 frequencies by these various -- for these 

5 various people, how they are to be monitored. 

6 It may give you an understanding of 

7 the issues that were raised by Dr. Ziemer and 

8 others about how do you relate the frequency 

9 of exposure -- or the frequency of monitoring 

10 as opposed to the prospect of being exposed to 

11 higher levels? 

12 So maybe you want to take a look at 

13 that during the break, and then come back and 

14 perhaps reorient our thinking. 

15 MR. MAURO: Yes, Hans, I have it in 

16 my hand. I did not do anything with it, and I 

17 wasn't planning on bringing this forward 

18 during the meeting. But it sounds like there 

19 may be some value here. I'm not quite sure 

20 where it fits in, but I do have it. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, my initial 

22 reaction is that your plan would serve to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 59

1 verify that they are doing what they say here. 

2 I don't know if it would go beyond that right 

3 now. 

4 In other words, we already know the 

5 sampling frequency, according to that, and you 

6 would be -- 

7 MR. MAKHIJANI: But, Dr. Ziemer -- 

8 this is Arjun. I think that our work 

9 elsewhere has indicated that what is intended 

10 to be the sampling frequency was not always 

11 the sampling frequency. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. That is the 

13 point I'm making. It would serve to verify 

14 that they were following that. 

15 MR. BEHLING: And I think we have -

16 - and Arjun would have to speak to this, but I 

17 think you have a sufficient dataset. At 

18 least when you combine the production workers 

19 together, and perhaps the maintenance workers 

20 together, we will have quite a large set of 

21 workers, and we will be able to make at least 

22 some semi-quantitative judgment about whether 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 60

1 the NIOSH model, co-worker model adequately 

2 represents the group with the highest 

3 exposure. 

4 If the group with highest exposure 

5 was consistently monitored, then, of course, 

6 the co-worker model for them is entirely moot. 

7 But if they were not, then it will become a 

8 very important question, and you may have to 

9 look into whether further work is necessary. 

10 But it may not be. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: I am trying to 

12 think of the history of this, too, that we -- 

13 I mean, I think initially part of the reason 

14 we wanted to look at data completeness, at 

15 least what was in my head, was the fact that -

16 - I think it was the statements early on that 

17 most of the data reconstructions were going to 

18 be done based on individual data, and we 

19 weren't going to have to rely on a co-worker 

20 model very much. 

21 One is in the works, I think, 

22 initially we heard. Now this has been going 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 61

1 on for a while. 

2 MR. MAURO: That is correct. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: But one is in the 

4 works, and we will use it, but only for a very 

5 few cases. And we had that sort of at Rocky, 

6 too. So I think part of what we wanted to 

7 make sure is -- and at the end of the day at 

8 Rocky Flats there was -- a lot of what we came 

9 down to is even the D&D workers, even though 

10 they didn't have a lot of urinalysis data, a 

11 good percentage of them, a high percentage of 

12 them had a close-out urinalysis sample. 

13 So even if you didn't have annual, 

14 through that completeness review we found that 

15 we had enough that they could reconstruct. 

16 That was sort of my focus, was if we are going 

17 to do this individually, is the individual 

18 data adequate to support that. 

19 It may not be an SEC procedure 

20 requirement, but it is a Board requirement 

21 that we look at this data completeness and 

22 validity issue. So that was sort of my 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 62

1 driver. 

2 Now this co-worker model may -- you 

3 know, I'm still not sure -- and this is the 

4 proof of principle side of our Board 

5 procedures. I'm still not sure when, in fact, 

6 NIOSH intends on using the -- I'm just looking 

7 at it online while I'm trying to follow. So 

8 it may be in here, but I'm still not clear on 

9 when you are going to use the co-worker model. 

10 Is it going to be if someone has no 

11 urine data. I don't know the conditions, and 

12 the other question would be the application of 

13 it. Are you going to use the 95th or the 

14 50th, and that's important in terms of 

15 answering that question of can it be bounding 

16 for all members of the class, that sort of 

17 thing. 

18 I guess my first driver for the 

19 completeness review was my understanding was 

20 that, for the most part, it was going to be 

21 individual DRs, not rely on a co-worker model. 

22 MR. NETON: I haven't looked at the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 63

1 SEC evaluation report in quite sometime, but 

2 usually there is a section in there that talks 

3 about the claimants that we have -- the claims 

4 that we have and how many actually have 

5 internal bioassay measurements, that sort of 

6 thing, and it's probably got us covered. 

7 MR. ROLFES: That is right around 

8 93 percent of the individuals. 

9 MR. NETON: So for 93 percent of 

10 the claims we have in-house. So seven percent 

11 of the people don't have internal bioassay 

12 data. So that number is already known. We 

13 already know that seven percent of the claims, 

14 at least that we have in-house, don't have 

15 bioassay data. 

16 So I would be surprised if this 

17 doesn't show something similar, you know. So 

18 I guess again that is my point. So if you 

19 look at the seven percent that don't have 

20 bioassay data, what are their job categories. 

21 You know, what did they do, and then how is 

22 NIOSH going to fill in those seven claims? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 64

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Out of 300 or 

2 more? I'm saying the other side. Look at the 

3 93 percent and make sure that data is -- you 

4 know, you looked at -- that's probably based 

5 on just -- look at it and say is it adequate 

6 to do the reconstruction. 

7 MR. NETON: That would seem to be 

8 the place to start rather than the entire 

9 population and universe of all workers that 

10 ever worked at Fernald. I don't know. 

11 MR. MORRIS: Of all of the co12 worker studies we have probably ever tackled, 

13 the data has been more abundant here than any 

14 other site. That is why I am puzzled about 

15 what is driving this. 

16 There is a couple of hundred 

17 thousand urine samples that we were able to 

18 grab to pull this data together, and you know, 

19 it is -- the idea now of parsing it into 

20 smaller granularity to try to do anything else 

21 with it doesn't make sense to me. 

22 MR. NETON: It would make sense if, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 65

1 for instance, you could show that the chemical 

2 operators have no bioassay data, something to 

3 that effect. I mean, it would have to be 

4 almost that egregiously out of whack. 

5 MR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun. You 

6 know, I think in the evaluation report it 

7 does that say that 90 percent of the workers 

8 or more have bioassay data, but it says 

9 nothing about the frequency of bioassay data. 

10 Now, you know -- 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's my point. 

12 People looking at Plant 2 were monitored once 

13 a year or once in two years. This would be 

14 quite material to your ability to reconstruct 

15 doses, because it's like the -- especially if 

16 you've got episodic exposures. 

17 So I think -- and I think, while 

18 the statement that 90 percent of the workers 

19 were monitored may be right on the face of it, 

20 it doesn't tell you whether the frequency of 

21 monitoring of production workers was adequate, 

22 given the solubility, to do the job. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 66

1 MR. NETON: Again, you've got the 

2 frequency list that Hans alluded to here just 

3 a few seconds ago, and basically you would be 

4 either verifying that they did what they said 

5 they did, and that's the whole point of that 

6 exercise. 

7 MR. MAKHIJANI: Well, that's part 

8 of the thing, yes. There is an inkling about 

9 what was supposed to be done, and then there 

10 is a verification of that. 

11 MR. BEHLING: This is Hans again, 

12 and I really do feel very, very strongly about 

13 John distributing that particular document 

14 that I made reference to a few minutes ago, 

15 because one of the things that I asked John to 

16 perhaps bring up at this meeting is whether or 

17 not even people who were monitored on a 

18 monthly basis, as we find here for Plants 2 

19 and 3, Plant 4 and so forth -- and I have the 

20 numbers in front of me -- but the question is 

21 were, in fact, only a subset of those people 

22 monitored. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 67

1 That is what, basically, I am 

2 beginning to believe in looking at these 

3 numbers, because the numbers given for Plants 

4 2 and 3 for this one category only involve 

5 five individuals who were monitored on a 

6 monthly basis for the year 1982, and it is 

7 clear to me, or at least it seems clear to me, 

8 that those people do not represent the 

9 universe of the total people assigned to 

10 Plants 2 and 3. 

11 So anyway, I think I would rather 

12 have John show you the document and perhaps 

13 make photocopies during the next break, and 

14 then perhaps we can look at some of that data 

15 and come to some conclusions regarding not 

16 only the frequency by which people were 

17 monitored, but whether or not the total 

18 universe of workers assigned to those 

19 particular locations were, in fact, monitored, 

20 or if it is only a subsample of those workers. 

21 MR. ROLFES: Hans, this is Mark 

22 Rolfes. Were those five people monitored via 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 68

1 only urinalysis or did they also have full 

2 body counts or in vivo -- 

3 MR. BEHLING: No, this is strictly 

4 a urinalysis schedule. I'm looking at a urine 

5 schedule. I don't even remember where I got 

6 this document from, but it must have been part 

7 of the information that was just downloaded 

8 and was provided to me by the people who wrote 

9 the SEC petition. 

10 MR. RICH: Can we get this document 

11 put on the O: Drive or e-mailed out? 

12 MR. BEHLING: Well, I don't really 

13 have it, but as I say, John has that document 

14 in front of him. 

15 MR. MAURO: Hans, I have five pages 

16 of the material that you are making reference 

17 to. I am sort of thumbing through it as you 

18 speak and trying to connect what you are 

19 saying to -- 

20 MR. BEHLING: Well, okay. Let me 

21 see. 

22 MR. MAURO: Why don't we do it 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 69

1 during the break? 

2 MR. BEHLING: It's the third page, 

3 John, that has, for instance, by plants and 

4 the total number of people and their 

5 frequency. And as I said, the document 

6 explains itself, if you just thumb through it. 

7 MR. MAURO: Okay. I've got that in 

8 my hand. Yes. 

9 MR. BEHLING: And I'm sure Arjun 

10 and other people from NIOSH will be able to 

11 instantly recognize what these data represent. 

12 MR. KATZ: Sandra? 

13 MS. BALDRIDGE: This is Sandy. 

14 MR. KATZ: Sandra, can you just 

15 come closer to the mike, please. 

16 MS. BALDRIDGE: I have a question. 

17 The historical documents in the petition that 

18 showed extremely high MACs and potential 

19 exposure -- were those ever correlated to see 

20 if, in fact, the workers in those locations at 

21 those times had urinalysis done? I mean, you 

22 may have plenty of records, but if it wasn't 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 70

1 done at the right time on the right people 

2 under the highest exposure, those records 

3 aren't going to give an accurate expression of 

4 what their actual exposure was. 

5 MR. ROLFES: Off the top of my 

6 head, Sandra, I couldn't tell you if we went 

7 back and correlated. I apologize. I don't 

8 have the answer right now for you. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Could I ask kind of 

10 a reverse question. This is Ziemer. Maybe 

11 I'll ask -- maybe, Jim, you could help me on 

12 this. 

13 If the SC&A approach were not used, 

14 how would the information on whether or not 

15 the proposed frequencies or the mandated 

16 frequencies were actually carried out? How 

17 would that come out in the dose reconstruction 

18 process or, in other words, if the frequency 

19 for the chemical operators was not what is 

20 stipulated, would this show up in some obvious 

21 way that you guys would say right away, oh, 

22 something is wrong here? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 71

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: If you expected 

2 them to have a lot of data, and there's only a 

3 few data points or something like that. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. And what 

5 would that do in terms of the co-worker model? 

6 How would the information emerge in some -- 

7 or would it emerge? 

8 MR. NETON: I don't really think it 

9 would. I think -- 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm trying to see 

11 if there is value added in doing this or is 

12 this just something that is going to verify 

13 what would happen anyway? 

14 MR. NETON: No. I don't think -- 

15 Mark Rolfes is closer to this than I am, but I 

16 don't think that we would end up sort of de 

17 facto demonstrating that frequency of 

18 monitoring in our co-worker model, but it is 

19 the age-old argument we've had since the 

20 beginning with this program. Were, in fact, 

21 the highest exposed workers targeted for 

22 monitoring or not, or was it a cohort sampling 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 72

1 or were they, in fact, under-sampling the 

2 highest exposed workers, and the people who 

3 were least exposed were monitored? 

4 Those are sort of the three 

5 categories. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. And would it 

7 show up, as you develop the model and begin to 

8 use it? 

9 MR. ROLFES: I didn't hear your 

10 initial question. Bob just repeated it for 

11 me. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't know if I 

13 even stated it well, but I'm sort of trying to 

14 get an intuitive feel for what would happen. 

15 Does this add anything to the system? 

16 I think I would like -- if there is 

17 value added in what -- if there is no value 

18 added in what SC&A does in some way, then we 

19 have to say why do it, from the Board's 

20 perspective and your own. If there is value 

21 added and something emerges that helps develop 

22 the model or -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 73

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think what comes 

2 out of this granularity, as you discussed, is 

3 that -- I mean, I don't think anybody here is 

4 arguing that there is not a lot of data 

5 points. I think the question is, when you 

6 start to look by year and by groups that we 

7 think should have been monitored frequently, 

8 and if something falls out like for a couple 

9 of years, all of a sudden no sampling was 

10 being done, if there is not a good explanation 

11 for that, I think there could be a problem. 

12 That happened in Rocky Flats. 1969 

13 comes to mind. You know, there was the 

14 problem with the data there. So it did come 

15 out from doing that granularity check. 

16 MR. NETON: The models are 

17 developed by year, of course, to start with, 

18 and you have a yearly co-worker model. It's 

19 not one model. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: I know. I know. 

21 Right. 

22 MR. MORRIS: In fact, this is a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 74

1 quarterly model. 

2 MR. NETON: It is a quarterly 

3 model. Then you have to start looking at, you 

4 know, so this shows maybe some people weren't 

5 monitored, and then you get into these 

6 investigations, which he posed the question on 

7 the original analysis. Well, are you going to 

8 take into account the fact that there were 

9 certain campaigns where the plant was shut 

10 down, there were strikes, there was this. 

11 You would have to go back and then 

12 run to ground all of those different 

13 perturbations that could exist in the system. 

14 So you end up chasing a lot of issues that, 

15 given that there are thousands of samples per 

16 quarter, I'm sure -- you know, does that 

17 represent the highest exposed workers or were 

18 they, in fact, only sampling workers who were 

19 the least exposed. You know, I don't know. 

20 You would have to look at the distribution of 

21 workers by quarter. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: But the SC&A sample 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 75

1 is across a big time period. 

2 MR. NETON: I think one way to 

3 approach it maybe is look at the air sample 

4 results and say, okay, here is where the 

5 highest air samples were, you know. To me, 

6 that makes more sense than just sort of 

7 looking at a sampling frequency and either 

8 verifying or not verifying that they follow 

9 their plan, but where in fact where the 

10 chemical operators were the highest air 

11 samples, and did they sample those people as 

12 frequently or more frequently than -- 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Going back to 

14 Bob's -- I mean, part of the problem with 

15 setting up data quality objectives, I guess, 

16 is that we've got -- I've got a front end 

17 moving target. 

18 If you are saying that you are 

19 going to do DRs based on individual sampling 

20 results for these 90 percent, whatever, I 

21 don't know when the other kicks in. So if we 

22 find -- I mean, if you had -- if I had a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 76

1 better understanding -- maybe it's in there 

2 again, but if I had a better understanding, if 

3 we find -- you know, if there is an if-then 

4 tree and you look at individuals' results and 

5 you see that they have four urine samples but 

6 for the last 15 years of their work there, 

7 there was nothing, so we have nothing at the 

8 end of that tree, then we are going to be 

9 thrown into the co-worker model, and we are 

10 going to use this criteria to assign dose. 

11 That is different than saying that 

12 we don't need the co-worker model for most 

13 cases; we are going to use their own data. My 

14 premise going in was that I want to look to 

15 make sure that the data is adequate to do each 

16 -- by sampling, to do each individual. 

17 MR. NETON: You are asking a lot 

18 there, because each case is very specific, as 

19 you know. Many of these cases, I can 

20 guarantee you, you are going to use the 95th 

21 percentile for prostate cancers and such, and 

22 it is not going to make any difference in the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 77

1 end of the day. I mean, let's face it. These 

2 metabolic organs, kidney, skeleton, liver 

3 maybe, and lung, are the ones that are going 

4 to be more detailed analyses. 

5 Virtually, the other cancers you 

6 can use the 95th percentile for internal, no 

7 matter what the data say, and the files 

8 demonstrate that those cancers could not have 

9 a 50 percent probability of causation. 

10 So you kind of got to look at the 

11 context on how these are done, too. 

12 MR. MAKHIJANI: Can you hear me? 

13 MR. KATZ: Yes. Is that Arjun? 

14 MR. MAKHIJANI: This is an SEC 

15 investigation. I think, you know, if you look 

16 at this or Rocky Flats or what we've just sent 

17 you on the Nevada Test Site -- I mean, 

18 clearly, we think there are some questions 

19 about whether the data frequency are being 

20 carried out and whether the most exposed 

21 workers were indeed monitored for the relevant 

22 radionuclide. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 78

1 This problem does become very 

2 acute, if you parse it by period, and I think, 

3 of course, it's up to the Board and the 

4 working group as to whether we do that, but I 

5 think some verification is part of our 

6 procedures, and this is why this was suggested 

7 or the working group had originally taken this 

8 up. 

9 There are ways to slice it, and 

10 there are a lot of analyses that can be done. 

11 It surely is not going to answer all the 

12 questions, but it seems like a basic check 

13 that we have normally done, these days, I mean 

14 we normally do. 

15 MR. NETON: It does seem to me, 

16 though, that if NIOSH has a co-worker model on 

17 the table by quarter for all these years, 

18 that's a starting point for now. I mean, you 

19 are going from the other direction. 

20 MR. MAURO: Oh, there is no doubt 

21 that when this was prepared, it was oriented 

22 toward completion. It was oriented toward 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 79

1 completeness. There is no doubt that, when we 

2 started this, we didn't say, well, let's take 

3 a look at the co-worker model and see if we 

4 can validate that. That was not what we did. 

5 MR. NETON: Right. So to me, it 

6 seems to be disconnected. That's my point. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's right. 

8 Part of this -- the action came up before the 

9 co-worker model was completed. 

10 MR. MAURO: Now the co-worker model 

11 may make -- 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Although it's been 

13 out there longer than I think we knew. 

14 MR. MAURO: Well, yes. I agree. 

15 MR. BEHLING: John, may I 

16 interrupt. I just talked to Kathy, and she is 

17 about to forward to you electronically those 

18 five pages that I was making reference to. 

19 The only thing that I need to know is who is 

20 going to be receiving this? 

21 I have Paul Ziemer, Jim Neton, Mark 

22 Rolfes, Mark Griffon, Brad Clawson, Bob 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 80

1 Presley, and I have Arjun. Is there anybody 

2 else that I need to forward this to? 

3 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes. Hans, this 

4 is Phil Schofield. Could you forward it to 

5 me? 

6 MR. BEHLING: Oh, yes. I'm sorry, 

7 Phil. 

8 MR. KATZ: Ted Katz, too, please. 

9 MR. BEHLING: I am going to try to 

10 get this to you momentarily, and perhaps that 

11 document will answer a portion of the 

12 questions that have been raised. 

13 MR. ROLFES: Looking back in my 

14 notes, when I had initially seen the sampling 

15 plan, I thought that it might fit better if 

16 NIOSH were using multiple co-worker models, 

17 but that is not what NIOSH does. 

18 If we had, for example, a co-worker 

19 model for secretaries, one for security 

20 workers, one for chemical operators, or a 

21 model for each Fernald plant, for example, a 

22 model for each subpopulation that was 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 81

1 mentioned in the proposal -- this is not what 

2 NIOSH does, though. NIOSH co-worker models 

3 are developed using all monitored workers= 

4 data fitted to a log-normal distribution. 

5 Those Fernald employees who have 

6 less exposure potential were bioassayed much 

7 less frequently, usually on an annual basis. 

8 Those workers that had greater exposure 

9 potential were bioassayed much more 

10 frequently, sometimes daily, especially for 

11 those with urine concentrations above 50 

12 micrograms of uranium per liter, for those 

13 that were involved in incidents or exposed to 

14 more soluble forms of uranium such as uranium 

15 hexachloride. 

16 There are also less monitoring data 

17 for those with lower routine exposure 

18 potentials. Having 24 co-worker models would 

19 likely lower the assigned intakes for the 

20 unmonitored workers in a subpopulation deemed 

21 to have lower exposure potential. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Are you planning 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 82

1 on 24 -- I don't understand this. 

2 MR. ROLFES: No. SC&A doesn't 

3 develop co-worker models, first of all. 

4 MR. MAURO: I think that -- let me 

5 try. We are trying to make too much -- 

6 MR. ROLFES: If I can respond, 

7 Mark, please. Just a second, please. 

8 The initial over 24 different 

9 classes that were presented in SC&A's model. 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: In their sampling 

11 plan, but they are not saying that it is going 

12 to end up being 24 co-worker models. 

13 MR. ROLFES: Right. Correct. 

14 MR. MAURO: All I was going to say 

15 is that it is simpler than what we are making 

16 the intent of this is. What the intent of 

17 this is, is when we were are done and we find 

18 out there is a load of bioassay samples for 

19 this, we could say with a high level of 

20 confidence that everyone of those strata, at 

21 least 50 percent, 60 percent, have at least 

22 one bioassay sample. Let's say we walk away 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 83

1 with that, and for every single one of these 

2 cells. That is going to be a strong statement 

3 of support. 

4 Don't forget, this would be a 95 

5 percent statement. We could be 95 percent 

6 confident that at least these many have at 

7 least one, and so that statement is by number, 

8 or two or three. 

9 Now if that is not deemed -- and 

10 when we are done, if that statement can be 

11 made, I think that goes a long way to validate 

12 the position you are saying, that you have 

13 abundant workers of all categories, all time 

14 periods and all buildings, and as a result it 

15 goes toward supporting the idea that, yes, 

16 from that kind of dataset you could just about 

17 build any kind of co-worker model you might 

18 want to. 

19 I'm looking at it from the positive 

20 -- if I was wearing your hat, how would I look 

21 at how this would help? Now, granted, if we 

22 come back with some holes, yes, that is going 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 84

1 to cause some headaches, headaches that 

2 perhaps are not real. 

3 That is, because you have a paucity 

4 of data in that particular cell, what about 

5 it? But I guess I would say I'd like to know 

6 that, though, and if I do -- because don't 

7 forget, the granularity of this -- this is not 

8 that fine grained. I mean, it's not that -- I 

9 mean, we've grouped big chunks of years. 

10 Basically, that's what happened here. 

11 If we do come back with a big hole 

12 in a given year or a segment for a given 

13 plant, I guess I would like to know why. In 

14 other words, there is very low frequency here, 

15 and the answer should be -- There should be an 

16 answer to that. 

17 I think that that is what this will 

18 do. It will point us into the places where 

19 maybe we have to ask some questions. How come 

20 it's high everywhere else in the sampling, but 

21 in this particular cell it is not. It doesn't 

22 appear to be. It's a big difference. And 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 85

1 then be able to answer that question 

2 strengthens your position to say, yes, we can 

3 build a co-worker model. 

4 MR. NETON: I hear what you are 

5 saying. I still -- my argument is that we 

6 have abundant data, and to me it would be 

7 reasonable to try to demonstrate why the data 

8 we have did not represent the highest exposed 

9 workers. 

10 That's the whole point. So you 

11 have fewer samples in Plant 2-3 over a couple 

12 year period. Is the data we have of that 

13 quarter for all the workers on site 

14 representative of the highest exposed workers 

15 in that category? That's the end of the day. 

16 That's the bottom line question, not whether 

17 there was -- plant 2-3 was shut down for six 

18 months or broke or something like that. 

19 I just don't understand what it is 

20 going to show. 

21 MR. BEHLING: It is the question, 

22 and Mark just read out a series of criteria 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 86

1 for sampling, and surely some verification is 

2 needed whether that was done. If you find 

3 large holes in the production workers who had 

4 high potential for exposure, and you have all 

5 monitored worker basis co-worker model and you 

6 have to use that, or say chemical operators or 

7 other workers with high exposure potential, 

8 there surely would be a question. 

9 It may not be that they would find 

10 these kinds of gaps in monitoring, but the 

11 issue was to verify those things. 

12 MR. NETON: I have said all I am 

13 going to say. 

14 MR. ROLFES: To address what Ms. 

15 Baldridge did say before, I apologize. One of 

16 the things -- I didn't have anything in my 

17 head at the moment, and I couldn't think back. 

18 But one of the things that was done at 

19 Fernald, for example, is the daily weighted 

20 exposure evaluations that were conducted in 

21 the early days, and those did track individual 

22 employees at each work station. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 87

1 There were different categories of 

2 workers completing different job tasks at 

3 different stations, each with a breathing zone 

4 sample that was taken, as well as a general 

5 area air monitoring result. 

6 Those were compiled for an 

7 individual on an eight and a half-hour work 

8 day to look to see what the exposure 

9 potentials were at different stations, 

10 etcetera, to see what -- I guess, what amounts 

11 of uranium a person could have been exposed 

12 to. 

13 There is data that is available 

14 that could be used to go back and compare air 

15 monitoring data from those daily weighted 

16 exposure reports to the urinalysis data. So 

17 there is information that is available, and 

18 that was something that NLO actually did do on 

19 site. 

20 There were some examples. There 

21 was a report from J.F. Wing at NOL who had 

22 found that one -- I believe it was an operator 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 88

1 -- had some high urine concentrations, and 

2 what he actually did is mirrored the 

3 individual's work. He tracked him around the 

4 work stations, etcetera, and actually used 

5 himself as another individual who basically 

6 was doing an experiment on himself to see what 

7 his urine concentrations would have been doing 

8 the same work. 

9 So there were things that were 

10 done, but we have on the whole done something 

11 like that. 

12 MS. BALDRIDGE: Okay. The point 

13 was that in the petition there is also the 

14 affidavit that challenged the practices in the 

15 air monitoring and put some of that data still 

16 in question, the validity of it. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Question. This is 

18 Ziemer. Mark or Jim, on the proposed co19 worker model, does it take into account the -- 

20 Is it by years or by -- 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: By quarters. 

22 MR. MORRIS: With minor exceptions, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 89

1 it is by year -- by quarter. When there were 

2 like plant stand-downs for funding issues or 

3 things like that, there a few years where it 

4 moved back to annualized. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: So for a given 

6 worker, if you were using -- For a given 

7 claimant, if you were using a co-worker model, 

8 you would go back and make the assignment of 

9 dose by quarters. 

10 MR. MORRIS: That's right. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: And that would 

12 reflect, presumably, whatever campaigns were 

13 going on and so on. That information -- So if 

14 you have a quarter where there is -- or a year 

15 even, whatever time period there is where 

16 there is low activity or not much going on, 

17 then you would expect the sampling frequency, 

18 bioassay frequency, to drop off. 

19 That information would not show up 

20 in this sampling plan. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Why not? 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I don't think 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 90

1 you would be able to -- You are sampling over 

2 the total -- 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Absolutely not. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: So I'm trying to 

5 get a feel for whether it would be more 

6 important -- If we did a sampling plan, would 

7 it be more important to do it by year or by 

8 time periods and have less -- have two or 

9 three-- 

10 MR. MAURO: More granularity. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it depends on 

12 what is more important to look at. In other 

13 words, you could take groups of operators and 

14 lump them together. I don't know. There are 

15 chemical operators and -- 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Do it more like 

17 production maintenance, administrative or 

18 something. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Less detail on the 

20 job categories and more detail on years, if 

21 that would help. I'm still trying to get a 

22 feel for what value added we get from doing 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 91

1 this sampling, because if we are really 

2 building -- Again, I know you are saying this 

3 isn't for building a co-worker model, but you 

4 are trying to inform the system on whether or 

5 not the data is adequate. 

6 If they are looking at it more by 

7 time periods and you are looking at it more by 

8 job categories, we pass each other in the 

9 night, so to speak. 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: My sense is that -

11 - and maybe I'm wrong, John, but my sense is 

12 that when you are pulling this data together, 

13 even if you look in a ten-year -- I don't 

14 understand it, but whatever the time period 

15 is, when you are pulling all these records, if 

16 all of a sudden you find that, you know, you 

17 are doing '60 to '70, but 1965 again and again 

18 is coming up as the place where there is less 

19 data, so you flag that. You make a note of 

20 it. 

21 It comes back to the work group, 

22 and maybe there is a ready explanation, you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 92

1 know that agrees with our co-worker; there was 

2 a down period. And it goes away. 

3 MR. MAURO: And I am going to ask 

4 Harry, if he is online, you know, when I was 

5 looking at the HIS-20 database, and you are 

6 trying to sort, trying to do Plant 1 for this 

7 time period, well, you have no choice but to 

8 go in and grab all the years in that time 

9 period, all the samples in that time period. 

10 In effect, we are going to have 

11 that, but we are going to collapse it into 

12 this form. Now what I am hearing is don't -- 

13 you know, there may be some great value to not 

14 collapsing that data. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I don't know 

16 if there is. 

17 MR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun. I think, 

18 as we did for the Nevada test site, there will 

19 be several things we could deliver to you that 

20 will be done during this project. There will 

21 be, as John indicated, a non-collapsed, you 

22 know. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 93

1 When you grab these claim files, 

2 you will get all of the data, whether it is 

3 quarterly or daily or annual or whatever, and 

4 that will be in the file; and, certainly, as 

5 with the NTS, that can be submitted to the 

6 work group and NIOSH and put up on the O: 

7 Drive. But for the purposes of the procedures 

8 check, it would propose to aggregate. 

9 It would propose to aggregate how 

10 many samples do you think you are going to 

11 have based on the monitoring schedules that 

12 are on paper and how many samples do you have, 

13 and for particular years. They just look like 

14 something leaps out at you as 1969 leaps out 

15 at us in Rocky Flats. 

16 You know, we did establish an 

17 explanation for it, but it did require further 

18 work. 

19 MR. MORRIS: If you would indulge 

20 me one last comment, going back to my first 

21 one, data quality objectives. John, you said 

22 something like, well, we could say with 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 

 94

1 percent certainty that 50 percent of the 

2 workers were monitored as expected, and that 

3 would be a great outcome. 

4 MR. MAURO: No. I think a strong 

5 outcome would be if a statement could be made 

6 within that cell that you would be 90 percent 

7 confident -- 95 percent confident that at 

8 least 50 percent of the workers had one sample 

9 per year. 

10 Now that seems to be a pretty 

11 strong statement. 

12 MR. MORRIS: Okay. Well, let's 

13 stop right there, and then let me finish my 

14 point. 

15 You could also, without saying what 

16 the scorecard would be for success ahead of 

17 time, say that is a very weak outcome, and 

18 that that is a matter of opinion that you are 

19 establishing later on instead of up front. 

20 MR. MAURO: The only reason I say 

21 strong is that, from there, if you were going 

22 to say, therefore, for those people in that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 95

1 strata who were not monitored, I am going to 

2 assign the upper 95th percentile from that 

3 dataset. 

4 MR. MORRIS: Well, we don't do 

5 upper 95ths. 

6 MR. MAURO: Okay, right. 

7 MR. MORRIS: We do 50th percentile 

8 for most people or 84th percentile for highly 

9 exposed. 

10 MR. MAURO: Then that would not -- 

11 In other words, you would not use this 

12 information in that form. In other words, 

13 whatever information is here, once this 

14 database is here, I'm just sort of speculating 

15 that besides giving a sensibility of the 

16 degree of completeness, is there other value 

17 that it might have. 

18 I was thinking that it might have 

19 value in validating your co-worker models, but 

20 its primary objective was to make an objective 

21 statement regarding completeness in each cell. 

22 That's it. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 96

1 MR. MORRIS: Okay. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I wouldn't 

3 even say that that -- you know, to sit here 

4 and say that was a good outcome or a bad, I 

5 think you judge that against the original 

6 policy or whatever, or the expectation. You 

7 know, if operators should have been -- If 90 

8 percent of them or if 100 percent of them 

9 should have been sampled four times a year, 

10 and your outcome is that only 50 percent of 

11 them were sampled twice a year, then that is 

12 probably not such a good -- that is not a good 

13 result. 

14 So I think it depends on the -- I 

15 think you are right about that. But I think 

16 just to look at the data and see and then I 

17 don't think we need those kind of -- because 

18 my feeling was that, if we try to define those 

19 things up front, then we are going to get down 

20 into this -- well, defining those can be 

21 difficult, I think, because you got to et into 

22 the policy. You got to figure out what -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 97

1 I think, if we get -- we are trying 

2 to get a sense of this on the work group 

3 level. At least I am. And if it passes the 

4 kosher test, that's where we are going with 

5 this. 

6 Then but to the -- to speak back to 

7 the co-worker model thing, I guess my concern 

8 is that, again, how -- I mean, I understand 

9 you can use this for a lot of cancers, and it 

10 is not going to make a difference anyway. But 

11 the point is for those other cancers, I think, 

12 that if the individuals don't have enough 

13 data, I don't think the DR team is necessarily 

14 going to readily go to that 84th percentile 

15 and assign it, because it is going to knock it 

16 over. That will be over-estimating probably. 

17 So then they are going to go with 

18 the individuals' data, and that is where it 

19 comes into that data completeness question. 

20 Is it complete for these people? Are the 

21 individual set of records complete enough to 

22 do it. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 98

1 MR. NETON: But that is a judgment 

2 call as to what is applied. Is it -- you 

3 know, we have a whole procedure on that, on 

4 what class of workers we see what type of 

5 exposure, whether they should have been 

6 monitored and were highly exposed, were 

7 administrative workers and probably didn't 

8 need to be, and then there is that middle 

9 category that we assign. 

10 That has been proceduralized. We 

11 have been using that for five years. That's a 

12 judgment call that always happens on a dose 

13 reconstruction. It=s not unique to Fernald. 

14 MR. ROLFES: Data completeness is 

15 evaluated for every dose reconstruction that 

16 is done. It is one of the first things that 

17 we do. 

18 MR. NETON: I would argue that it 

19 works to the claimant's favor if only chemical 

20 operators were monitored, for example. If 

21 this study shows that no administrative 

22 workers were monitored, I would say it is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 99

1 going to -- primarily, the higher exposed 

2 workers are monitored. That's my opinion, and 

3 I think that's true. 

4 So this study shows that, and maybe 

5 there are some holes in the lower exposed 

6 workers. Well, that is as biased as the co7 worker model high at the end of the day 

8 anyways. So I don't really see the value. I 

9 should shut up. 

10 MR. MAURO: Well, I'm not here to 

11 sell this. I'm here trying to say that where 

12 -- and I was given a mandate to come up with a 

13 sampling plan that would evaluate completeness 

14 of the records, and this is what we came up 

15 with, and this is what we initiated a week ago 

16 to do that. 

17 Now I think that this is fine. 

18 What we are really doing is second guessing 

19 that judgment. Is this going to add value? 

20 That's fine, but our intent was to try to 

21 address completeness questions the way I just 

22 described it. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 100

1 We will do whatever the work group 

2 would like us to do. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: What is the -- can 

4 I step back? What is the procedure for 

5 evaluating the data completeness for an 

6 individual DR claim? It's not Fernald7 specific. It's global. What is the 

8 procedure? 

9 MR. ROLFES: That's an important 

10 thing that -- 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: What is the 

12 procedure? 

13 MR. NETON: I don't know there is a 

14 procedure that says -- 

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't think 

16 there is. That's why I'm asking. 

17 MR. NETON: -- if the data are not 

18 -- if there are insufficient data in a record, 

19 what class of -- what part of the co-worker 

20 model was assigned? That's a procedure. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. That, I 

22 agree with. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 101

1 MR. NETON: But the value judgment 

2 has to be determined whether or not the data 

3 are sufficiently adequate in the file itself. 

4 If you have one bioassay record representing 

5 20 years of exposure, that's clearly not 

6 adequate. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. But that's 

8 kind of an internal dosimetrist's judgment, 

9 right? 

10 MR. NETON: Exactly. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: So we are saying 

12 let's look at the whole class and do that 

13 judgment. 

14 MR. ELLIOTT: It is also reviewed, 

15 too, the peer review process. 

16 MR. NETON: How could you proceed, 

17 Mark, if you got -- 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: You can't. You 

19 probably can't. 

20 MR. NETON: -- if you have a sample 

21 at the last day of employment and you can say, 

22 well, what was that guy's maximum exposure 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 102

1 that he would have that sample on the last day 

2 of employment, one bioassay point is adequate 

3 probably. 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. You 

5 probably can't, but if you got a boatload of 

6 data and you are missing everything -- you are 

7 missing a big time period, then you might have 

8 -- that's what this is going to show. 

9 MR. NETON: Then the internal 

10 dosimetry implementation guy talks about 

11 whether you use nearby data to fill in those 

12 gaps or you apply the surrogate, the co-worker 

13 model in the middle. 

14 I mean, there's a lot of different 

15 ways to do this, and that's -- those have been 

16 done many, many, many times, many different 

17 ways, but always to the claimant's benefit. 

18 There are many ways to fill in the 

19 gaps of the bioassay. The co-worker model is 

20 one of them. You just couldn't proceduralize 

21 this down to the nth degree. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: No. No, I'm not 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 103

1 saying that. I'm not suggesting that. I was 

2 just asking -- the statement was made that 

3 data completeness is reviewed as the first 

4 thing based on procedures. 

5 I don't know that a procedure 

6 exists. That's all I was asking. 

7 MR. ROLFES: To my knowledge, I 

8 can't mention a procedure number or anything, 

9 but as part of the dose reconstruction 

10 process, if you look at the individual's 

11 dosimetry data and see large amounts of 

12 external exposure and see that the individual 

13 was, for example, a chemical operator we use, 

14 and you don't see any bioassay data in there, 

15 that certainly would raise a flag on the data 

16 completeness. 

17 So a review like that would be done 

18 and would trigger us to know that, hey, 

19 something doesn't sound right here; we need to 

20 apply the co-worker model in this case, 

21 because the data appear to be incomplete, or 

22 that would prompt, for example, another 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 104

1 request from DOE to -- 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. A new 

3 question: Where is this guy's records? 

4 MR. ROLFES: Right. Things like 

5 that are done on every dose reconstruction. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess what this 

7 is doing is saying, if that is happening on a 

8 frequent basis, you got a problem, because 

9 then in that case you just described, that 

10 means you are missing those upper people that 

11 Jim described, and then your co-worker model 

12 is skewed. 

13 So I don't think there is any -- 

14 I'm not sure how many person hours this takes 

15 to do, but I think it is beneficial. I think 

16 there is value added. 

17 MR. NETON: Two hundred person 

18 hours? 

19 MR. MAURO: Yes, 200 work hours. 

20 We estimate about 200 work hours for this. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Which we have just 

22 about spent now discussing it. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 105

1 MR. ROLFES: Brad, should we take a 

2 break? 

3 CHAIR CLAWSON: Well, I just want 

4 to be able to say one thing. I've listened to 

5 all this, and here it comes back one thing, 

6 and that is completeness of data. 

7 The reason I wanted to start this 

8 up front is every work group I have been on, 

9 we end up coming back to this question at the 

10 very back end of it. I wanted to have it put 

11 up front now. 

12 If we can't come to that, then I 

13 guess we can come up to the very end of it 

14 again and get right back into it. 

15 So, John, you know, I kind of feel 

16 like John has been -- I asked John, because 

17 this has been an issue at, it seems like, 

18 every work group I've got on, and I wanted to 

19 try to get it done up front instead of at the 

20 very end of it, because it gets kind of 

21 convoluted there. 

22 We will discuss that. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 106

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: The last thing I 

2 will say before -- because we need a break to 

3 think about this, but I think we need to think 

4 about the other obvious audience in this, and 

5 the petitioner has brought this up, and I 

6 think it is up to the Board in some way to be 

7 able to respond to the petitioner's concerns. 

8 If at the end of the day, like 

9 Rocky Flats -- you know, I'm not sure we've 

10 convinced everyone in the room. I'm pretty 

11 sure we didn't, but our conclusion and SC&A's 

12 conclusion was that it was complete. But we 

13 went through it, and we've made the effort to 

14 look at that closer, and it was in part to 

15 address the petitioner's concerns. 

16 So I think we need to go through 

17 this process. I'll leave it at that. 

18 CHAIR CLAWSON: That said, we will 

19 take a break. 

20 MR. KATZ: Ten minutes? 

21 CHAIR CLAWSON: Ten minutes. 

22 MR. KATZ: Okay. So it's about 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 107

1 10:30. We will take up again about 10 to 

2 eleven. 

3 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

4 matter went off the record at 10:36 a.m. and 

5 resumed at 10:57 a.m.) 

6 CHAIR CLAWSON: We can go ahead and 

7 start back up. We've got a few housekeeping 

8 issues to take care of. 

9 MR. KATZ: Folks on the phone, this 

10 is the Fernald Working Group. We are getting 

11 started again. Sorry it was a little bit 

12 longer break than we intended. Brad, it's all 

13 yours. 

14 CHAIR CLAWSON: First of all, I 

15 would like to apologize, some of this 

16 information getting out late and so forth. 

17 As John would say, I would like to 

18 tell a little bit of a story. Part of the 

19 story is here a couple of months ago Hans 

20 Behling was doing a marvelous job at turning 

21 the reins over to John, and so John had to 

22 kind of start back up. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 108

1 One of our goals, and especially 

2 with Fernald, is to be able to get this 

3 information cleared so that we can hand it out 

4 to the petitioners and so forth that are with 

5 us here today, and we weren't able to do that. 

6 I take a lot of the blame for it, because we 

7 were going through a lot of different things, 

8 changing the matrices and so forth like that. 

9 I know that John did send it in for 

10 Privacy Act review, but we didn't get it back 

11 in time, and there have been some concerns 

12 with that. I would like to just let -- well, 

13 anyway, the petitioners that we have here and 

14 co-petitioners wanted to voice a concern, and 

15 I will turn that over to Ray Beatty who wanted 

16 to make a comment. 

17 MR. BEATTY: Yes. I am Ray Beatty, 

18 a former worker, and I assist the petitioner. 

19 I am really not listed as a co-petitioner on 

20 the active petition, but I have worked with 

21 her rather closely for the last couple of 

22 years. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 109

1 It was stated earlier in the 

2 meeting, it has been six months since we had a 

3 meeting, and at that meeting prior to this 

4 one, there was also a matrix handed out, and 

5 we were privileged to it initially. Then it 

6 was taken from us because of privacy. 

7 Quite frankly, that is, I feel, 

8 very disingenuous to the petitioner. A lot of 

9 the people out there filing claims already see 

10 a lot of problems where they think it is 

11 unfair, and when the petitioner comes to 

12 something like this, that person should at 

13 least be privileged to the information. 

14 I didn't know that this other 

15 transition had taken place with SC&A. So in 

16 fairness to that agency, you know, I kind of 

17 reviewed some of my comment, but I still think 

18 it is really not showing transparency to the 

19 petitioner to not be privileged to this 

20 information when it is presented so they can 

21 at least follow along and make rebuttal when 

22 it is necessary. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 110

1 It's kind of like the laundry issue 

2 earlier, and about the millwright being 

3 omitted. You know, I would have seen that 

4 personally if I had looked through that list. 

5 So I am taking kind of personal exception to 

6 some of the things that are being developed, 

7 but we don't have input. 

8 So that is just my comment in a 

9 nutshell, and I don't mean to take up the 

10 working group's valuable meeting time, but I 

11 just think this has some relevance. In the 

12 future, possibly, if there is going to be a 

13 document reviewed, if it is a new matrix or 

14 whatever, that it could be -- names could be 

15 redacted or, if there was a privacy issue. 

16 Rest assured that -- I know Mr. 

17 Callaway and myself -- we received some very 

18 extensive training on the HIPAA consent law 

19 and disclosures and the Privacy Act. We are 

20 very cognizant of those requirements, and we 

21 respect that. 

22 So rest assured that we just want 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 111

1 to follow along and be privileged to something 

2 where we can have comment. 

3 Anyone else that would chime in, 

4 feel free to do so, but I just feel like it is 

5 a fairness issue, and I think it could be 

6 fixed at the upcoming meetings. Thank you. 

7 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Ray. 

8 MR. HILL: This is Steven Hill from 

9 Congressman Chabot's office. Just briefly, 

10 Brad, I appreciate you raising that issue, and 

11 I'm sure you will make the necessary steps to 

12 address that in the upcoming meetings. So I 

13 appreciate that, as well as the comments from 

14 Ray. 

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, and I think, 

16 certainly, the Board members agree with Ray's 

17 statements. 

18 CHAIR CLAWSON: Definitely do. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Actually, we also 

20 feel somewhat of a little frustration. The 

21 rules of the game have changed even for the 

22 Board as we have proceeded, and now there is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 112

1 some additional security issues that have come 

2 into play that weren't there before, and it 

3 delays some of the documentation. But our 

4 General Counsel and others are working very 

5 hard to keep the turnaround time short. 

6 So we just need to be careful when 

7 we schedule the meetings and get the 

8 documentation far enough in advance so that we 

9 can get it distributed. I think it is 

10 certainly our intent. 

11 This is a little glitch today, but 

12 I think we can avoid it in the future. 

13 CHAIR CLAWSON: And in all fairness 

14 to John, I am probably the main one to put the 

15 glitch in it a little bit, because he produced 

16 an awfully big document, and he did a good 

17 job. The smaller one -- that was to help us 

18 out a little bit on that, and John has been 

19 working very diligently. 

20 I will personally take it as an 

21 action item to be able to make sure that these 

22 things are sent in to Emily and everybody in a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 113

1 timely manner to be able to get this done. 

2 This was a glitch, and I apologize 

3 to everybody for that. 

4 MS. BALDRIDGE: I'm a good 

5 listener. 

6 CHAIR CLAWSON: Well, I know it, 

7 but you know what? It's really good to be 

8 able to follow along, and we had this glitch 

9 the last time, and I swore we weren't going to 

10 get into that again, and it happened again, 

11 and I apologize to everybody that's here for 

12 that. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: You are right that we 

14 need to provide these documents as soon as we 

15 possibly can, but let's be real about this. 

16 In many instances, these documents come a week 

17 before, two days before. 

18 I would offer that we have set a 

19 precedent with Ms. Baldridge in one of these 

20 meetings where the DFO and OGC and other 

21 appropriate individuals have looked at the 

22 documents about to be discussed and shared 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 114

1 those, if they didn't contain Privacy Act. In 

2 one case, they did contain Privacy Act, but we 

3 asked that they not leave the room and not 

4 take notes. 

5 So I would offer that, you know, 

6 the precedent has been set in that regard. 

7 The two documents that were discussed in the 

8 previous discussion this morning, I asked if 

9 Emily would look at them, because I didn't see 

10 any Privacy Act information in those two brief 

11 documents and thought that it could be shared 

12 under that precedent that we had set. 

13 So I think we all should remember 

14 that as an option if the documents are 

15 generated in such a late fashion that we can't 

16 get them fully redacted or Privacy Act 

17 reviewed for release. We can avail ourselves 

18 of that option perhaps. 

19 MS. HOWELL: Can I just add? I 

20 mean, that's fine. It is okay when it is a 

21 short document. The problem is -- and Mr. 

22 Beatty brought up frustration with documents 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 115

1 being handed out and then taken back up. 

2 If we are able to do an on-site 

3 skim of these documents and then give them to 

4 you, then I have to say, if they go out, they 

5 are going to have to be given back to us. 

6 Document control is a really big 

7 issue for us, and we have to ensure that 

8 documents that are being made available to 

9 members of the public have the appropriate 

10 disclaimer language on them, headers, footers, 

11 so that anybody who looks at those documents 

12 later on, whether it be a staff person or a 

13 member of the public, can be aware of whether 

14 or not those documents have been reviewed, 

15 that they are pre-decisional in nature. 

16 So I guess I would just -- You 

17 know, obviously, there are some things that we 

18 need to work on about this process, but if we 

19 are able to make compromises like what Larry 

20 has just spoken about, then there's going to 

21 be some other compromises like not being able 

22 to take notes or not being able to keep the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 116

1 documents. Hopefully, we can not have this 

2 problem in the future, but there is a short 

3 turnaround often. 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: I think the 

5 compromise has value, though, because it 

6 enables the people who are sitting in this 

7 room to at least understand what is being 

8 discussed and can refer to the written page. 

9 So I'm in favor just to strive to get these 

10 releasable and, if we can't achieve that, then 

11 we should be able to share what we can share 

12 with the understanding that it is a compromise 

13 situation. 

14 MR. KATZ: I agree. As DFO, I just 

15 can say in the future -- What happened this 

16 morning is that we had decided the discussion 

17 while Emily is racing through trying to review 

18 the document, and we didn't have any extra 

19 copies and so on, and by the time we were done 

20 with that, the discussion is pretty much done, 

21 and it is not much of assistance to the rest 

22 of you. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 117

1 I apologize for that, too, but in 

2 the future going forward, certainly, we can 

3 sort of practice -- If we know we are coming 

4 to a meeting and the Privacy Act review, the 

5 formal Privacy Act review, hasn't been 

6 completed on a document, we can try to do that 

7 for the preliminary scan before the meeting 

8 starts. 

9 If it is a big document, it is not 

10 going to work, but for a short document like 

11 we had today, if I had it, we could have done 

12 it. We could have done it. 

13 CHAIR CLAWSON: The Fernald? 

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, the document 

15 presented. 

16 CHAIR CLAWSON: The smaller matrix. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: The other thing to 

18 keep in mind is many of our Work Group 

19 meetings get scheduled in advance in 

20 anticipation of documents. For example, we 

21 have a work group on November 10th whose 

22 deliberations are based on the assumption that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 118

1 certain documents will be forthcoming from 

2 NIOSH by October 30th, but if that date slips 

3 a little bit, and it could for any variety of 

4 reasons, then suddenly we are pressed for time 

5 both for the work group and then for the 

6 Privacy review. 

7 One of the options then is you 

8 reschedule the meeting. That is sort of one 

9 of the realities. Many of the Work Groups 

10 schedule based on when they anticipate being 

11 available. 

12 CHAIR CLAWSON: Well, we are trying 

13 to be proactive in it, and also, too, last 

14 night was the first time I was able to look at 

15 the small one. John had it all set up to be 

16 able to put it on the board and everything, 

17 and I says I don't think -- it hasn't been 

18 Privacy Act cleared. 

19 So that put him scrambling to try 

20 to make copies and so forth, I guess. So we 

21 will keep this in mind. We apologize, and we 

22 know what kind of a situation -- It's like us 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 119

1 trying to do something without a paper in 

2 front of us, too. 

3 MS. BALDRIDGE: Two comments, the 

4 first being one of the disadvantages is that I 

5 don't know the format that is being followed, 

6 and I may interject and get things off 

7 schedule, bringing up topics that I am not 

8 aware are scheduled on down further in the 

9 proceeding. 

10 CHAIR CLAWSON: Right. 

11 MS. BALDRIDGE: And secondly, about 

12 forthcoming documents, I have a question for 

13 Mr. Elliott. 

14 At our October meeting last year, 

15 you made a point of telling us that a draft 

16 for a portion of the site profile was pending 

17 and potentially available in a three-week 

18 window, which would have put it into November 

19 of last year. I believe that was on the 

20 environmental portion of the site profile that 

21 was being revised. 

22 I was wondering what's happened. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 120

1 MR. ROLFES: The only thing I can 

2 think of is that there could have been a 

3 portion, like a white paper, that was 

4 produced. I don't have any recollection of us 

5 actively revising -- 

6 MS. BALDRIDGE: I'm referring to 

7 the notes. 

8 MR. ROLFES: Okay. We can take a 

9 look back in the transcripts. 

10 MR. ELLIOTT: Let us look and see 

11 what we were discussing at that time. It may 

12 have been a draft. It may have been in the 

13 works. May not ever have been finalized. We 

14 don't share draft documents until we ourselves 

15 have -- 

16 MS. BALDRIDGE: I think there was 

17 an inquiry, and you gave a reassuring word 

18 that, you know, what they were asking for was 

19 potentially only three weeks away, at least in 

20 draft form. 

21 CHAIR CLAWSON: And that was to the 

22 TBD? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 121

1 MS. BALDRIDGE: I believe so. 

2 MR. ROLFES: It could have been a 

3 component of our site profile that was pulled 

4 out of the site profile as a white paper, and 

5 will be incorporated into the site profile. 

6 MS. BALDRIDGE: I believe that was 

7 maybe the 24th -- the October 24th meeting 

8 last year. 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: I will check on that, 

10 and I will let you know. 

11 MS. BALDRIDGE: Sure. Great. 

12 CHAIR CLAWSON: Okay. With that, 

13 we will turn back to John. 

14 MR. MAURO: I guess where I am 

15 right now is looking for some direction from 

16 the Work Group regarding the work plan, 

17 whether or not we hold off until we get 

18 further direction in light of the thinking or 

19 should we move forward? 

20 CHAIR CLAWSON: John, you know, 

21 I've been sitting here listening to this 

22 communication back and forth a little bit. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 122

1 Explain to me on the HIS database, are we 

2 going to be able to pull this up, plant 

3 building by building? 

4 MR. MAURO: I am going to introduce 

5 Bob Barton. Bob, could you come up and -- 

6 I'll give the quick answer, and then you can 

7 tell a little bit more. 

8 For the last several days, Bob has 

9 been diving into the database, and my 

10 understanding is we are having some trouble 

11 linking people with plants, but Bob feels that 

12 we might have found a way to get through it 

13 indirectly. 

14 Maybe you could explain. In other 

15 words, making this matrix essentially links 

16 people, job category, with plant, with time 

17 period, and be able to do that. 

18 It turns out that one of the 

19 problems we are encountering is linking the 

20 person at a given time period with the plant. 

21 I think you said it looks like you are on the 

22 track of finding a solution. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 123

1 CHAIR CLAWSON: You can come up 

2 here. 

3 MR. BARTON: As John said, my name 

4 is Bob Barton. I've spent a couple of days 

5 looking at the HIS-20 database. 

6 Basically, what we have been able 

7 to do so far is match claimant Social Security 

8 numbers to breathing zone data. Now there are 

9 approximately, I want to say, maybe 3500 

10 workers in that breathing zone file, and so 

11 far we haven't been able to match a 

12 significant number of claimant Social Security 

13 numbers to the Social Security numbers 

14 contained in the breathing zone file. 

15 The problem, as I see it, is going 

16 to be getting the claimants matched up with a 

17 particular building that they worked in. As I 

18 see it, in the HIS-20 there is actually only 

19 two of the spreadsheets that make any mention 

20 of the building, and as I said, we have only 

21 looked -- we have only been able to -- we have 

22 only matched up one of those spreadsheets. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 124

1 What we have so far is about 48 

2 matches, which doesn't get us all that far. 

3 But again, I think the biggest roadblock we 

4 have in undertaking this is matching people up 

5 to the building they worked in. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: So do you look at 

7 the individual's file, the actual claim file 

8 where they -- I mean, what do they indicate 

9 about when and where they worked or does it 

10 come out in the CADY interview? 

11 MR. BARTON: Oftentimes in the CADY 

12 interview there will be some mention of what 

13 buildings they worked in. I wouldn't say that 

14 is the majority of times. A lot of the times 

15 it is family that is being interviewed, and 

16 they don't necessarily know that information. 

17 In the DOE dose records for the 

18 site that I have looked at, I have not seen 

19 any mention of particular buildings. 

20 MR. ROLFES: If you take a look in 

21 the DOE response files, there are codes that 

22 are provided next to the bioassay sample 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 125

1 typically, and some of them are very easy to 

2 track which plant the individual worked in. 

3 Others aren't as clear. 

4 I believe in HIS-20 as well there 

5 are some older codes for buildings at Fernald, 

6 and it isn't as straightforward as this 

7 individual worked in Plant 7. They gave like 

8 a number, like 1045 or something, for a 

9 building, and that would have to be decoded as 

10 whatever plant. So that might be a way. 

11 MR. BARTON: That is certainly 

12 information that will help us. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: There is a column 

14 of plant IDs, and that's the one? Do you have 

15 -- I mean, do you have a listing of those 

16 plant IDs, a key? Someone must have that. 

17 MR. BARTON: Something I have 

18 noticed with the plant IDs, though, is it 

19 seems as if every single worker has an 

20 individual plant ID. So I don't know if that 

21 is actually tied to a particular building on 

22 the site. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 126

1 I would tend to say, looking at it, 

2 since they all seem to be individual plant 

3 IDs, I don't think they are tied. 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Somebody on the 

5 line was trying to say something. 

6 MR. CHMELYNSKI: This is Harry 

7 Chmelynski. I had the same question that Bob 

8 just asked. 

9 MR. MAURO: Well, I guess we are at 

10 a point in this process where that, in effect, 

11 I started a discussion related to issue number 

12 1, having to do with uranium bioassay data and 

13 its use in dose reconstruction. 

14 This first step was completeness. 

15 The reason I started with completeness is 

16 because I guess that is a fundamental issue. 

17 If we could walk away saying, yes, the data 

18 are basically complete, then all of a sudden 

19 everything falls off pretty easily. 

20 Then we could talk about recycled 

21 uranium. We could talk about -- and the 

22 plutonium levels. We could talk about 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 127

1 enriched uranium, because all of those hooks 

2 to deal with dose reconstruction for RU and 

3 for enriched uranium would require the 

4 milligram per liter number as your starting 

5 point. 

6 So let's first -- I was hoping that 

7 we would agree, after we get through this 

8 completeness issue and, yes, we agree that 

9 this is a good way to get a sense that we've 

10 got a complete data that we could hang our hat 

11 on, then we could -- but it sounds like that 

12 we sort of got stopped at this stage. 

13 What we can do is put that on ice 

14 right now. I mean this issue of the 

15 completeness analysis, whether you would like 

16 us to go forward with this or something else, 

17 and move on to the other issues related to 

18 internal dosimetry and bioassay data. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: No. I think we 

20 need to -- 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think, though, we 

22 need to answer the question of can you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 128

1 actually do that by plant or do you have to go 

2 by job category only or instead? 

3 It sounds like there is a 

4 possibility that, practically, you may not be 

5 able to do that. And if not, what would you 

6 propose as an alternative? Is it job 

7 category? 

8 MR. MAURO: I don't have an answer 

9 yet. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: That was sort of a 

11 rhetorical question. 

12 MR. MAURO: What we are basically 

13 working at is real time work. As we said, we 

14 only started about a week ago, and the first 

15 thing is, okay, is it tractable? Then let's 

16 dive in, and we are finding that there are 

17 some challenges. 

18 Now we just heard that there may be 

19 a way to link people's Social Security numbers 

20 with building, maybe not. I'm not sure. If 

21 we can, then we have something that we could -

22 - and we could do this thing here. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 129

1 Now that may be a showstopper. It 

2 may turn out we can't do it. Now we don't 

3 know yet. So the answer is that -- But I 

4 guess the bigger question is, even if we could 

5 do it, it sounds like we have a bigger 

6 question on the table, whether or not it is 

7 agreed amongst the Work Group that we should 

8 even try to do it. 

9 MEMBER PRESLEY: That's my problem. 

10 I'm going to be honest. This is Bob Presley. 

11 Is there enough value added to do this at 

12 this point with the data that NIOSH has? Are 

13 we going to spend 200 hours and say, well, we 

14 are sorry, we didn't come up with anything or 

15 can we let you all work enough with Jim to 

16 where that SC&A can say, okay, we agree with 

17 NIOSH's data on this, and let's move forward? 

18 MR. MAURO: Could I make a 

19 suggestion? I mean, this is just a 

20 suggestion. It sounds like there is enough of 

21 uncertainty regarding the value of this work 

22 and, as important, its doability because of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 130

1 the nature of the data. 

2 Now this goes back to the question, 

3 okay, there is a data completeness, data 

4 validation issue that goes to the heart of an 

5 SEC, and it has been our experience that 

6 sampling data in the database as a way to get 

7 a sense of whether or not you could build co8 worker models, what those co-worker models 

9 might look like, whether or not you could do 

10 dose reconstruction for each category of 

11 worker, each time period. 

12 These are fundamental questions at 

13 SEC. I think that perhaps, in light of the 

14 fact that there is a co-worker model out there 

15 now, and there is some question of whether or 

16 not we could actually do this, maybe it is 

17 time to regroup and say let's stop the presses 

18 on this, regroup, maybe have one of those 

19 teleconferences with members of the Work Group 

20 to rethink this. 

21 That could be -- we will have to 

22 look at the co-worker model and give some 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 131

1 thought to it, talk to Mark. Now that -- We 

2 are pretty familiar with the HIS database, now 

3 that we've built in at least initially what is 

4 there. Perhaps we could construct something 

5 different or new that might be -- 

6 Mark, really, you know, I feel as 

7 if I'm stepping into your territory. 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, no. I just 

9 thought -- We had a little discussion during 

10 the break of maybe a sort of, I guess, a 

11 stepwise approach to this, that we -- because 

12 there is a co-worker model on the table now. 

13 When we initially started this 

14 task, there wasn't. It was in development, 

15 and it did come out, but this has been quite a 

16 lengthy process. But my feeling was let's go 

17 forward with the sampling focus on what we 

18 believe -- and that's a question, too; that's 

19 a little subjective, too, but we believe would 

20 have been the higher exposed workers by, I 

21 guess, job type, is what we got to go by. 

22 You know, the plant question -- The 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 132

1 plant problem is a problem, but I would say 

2 almost that we could start a sampling by a 

3 time period, by job type, and then backfill 

4 and see what plants we covered. 

5 We have done that with our DR 

6 sampling, you know. It is not the best way to 

7 do it, but if we can't sample by plant, we 

8 don't have the data. 

9 I'm looking at this other table in 

10 HIS-20 where you talk about breathing zone 

11 sampling with building ID. The problem there 

12 is it starts in '97 or something. It D&D 

13 period. It is not -- So you are not likely to 

14 see a lot of links there. 

15 So I think I would say start with 

16 what we think -- what we believe to be the 

17 higher exposed workers by job type, take a 

18 sampling, look at them in those certain time 

19 periods, come back, report on that, and then 

20 we can compare that against -- juxtapose that 

21 against the co-worker model and say, okay, it 

22 looks as if they did sample the highest 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 133

1 exposed and, therefore, this co-worker -- you 

2 know, when there is inadequacies, we know now 

3 that they are going to use their co-worker 

4 model in those places, and is or is not that 

5 approach -- We can have that discussion. 

6 So I think that would be -- and 

7 that is a stepwise approach to, instead of 

8 sampling all the job categories. I agree with 

9 Jim. I don't want to just throw money at the 

10 project. Let's do this in a sort of stepwise 

11 approach. 

12 The difference, I think, at the 

13 start, like I said before, is that we didn't -

14 - I had the understanding that there was a co15 worker model under development, and I know 

16 it's been out there a while, and that it was 

17 also only going to be used in rare cases where 

18 they had little -- It's even stated in the 

19 minutes there that John compiled for this 

20 task. 

21 It says that, you know, basically, 

22 it will only be used in those few cases that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 134

1 are missing bioassay data. So it left me the 

2 impression that that was going to be the 

3 exception rather than the rule, if it is going 

4 to be used -- If it is much more of an 

5 overlap, then I think we can judge it this 

6 way. 

7 We can look at the higher exposed 

8 workers for data completeness. If, in fact, 

9 we find that it is pretty complete and it is 

10 in agreement with the co-worker approach, then 

11 I think we can put this to bed now. 

12 CHAIR CLAWSON: I also feel, you 

13 know, we still -- The petitioners, we still 

14 owe them, because there has been questions 

15 raised about completeness of the data, and 

16 this is what I was trying to come to a point 

17 with. 

18 There have been questions about the 

19 air sampling data and everything else like 

20 that, and this is what I was trying to put to 

21 bed up front and go from there. 

22 I would still like to proceed on. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 135

1 How we do it -- you know, that can be up to 

2 us, if you want to go for the higher set or 

3 whatever, but somehow, to me, I would still 

4 want to be able to check this data. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: I wouldn't object 

6 to a stepwise approach, as Mark described, 

7 which would allow us maybe to stop if we 

8 needed to. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: To come back and 

10 reassess. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: It would also 

12 answer the question as to how well you could 

13 do this. But the other thing is I think, 

14 before we make a final decision on this, I 

15 think in fairness the petitioners need to have 

16 this information and have input on it, 

17 including Hans' stuff. 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think they might 

19 have a lot of input as to what job categories. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: And be informed how 

21 you proceed with this. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: I agree. I agree. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 136

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: And so I would like 

2 to see us delay our final decision on doing a 

3 full fledged thing, but maybe allow a first 

4 step, if the petitioners would agree to that, 

5 that would allow us to determine whether 

6 sampling would, in fact -- I don't know. 

7 The first steps might be some 

8 examination of that data that was described by 

9 Bob or something like that, which would give 

10 us the option, if we recognize that that 

11 wasn't going to be fruitful, to say, well, we 

12 don't want to pursue this any further. 

13 CHAIR CLAWSON: Yes. 

14 MS. BALDRIDGE: Just a reminder. 

15 The petition contains historical documents 

16 from National Lead of Ohio that said they knew 

17 what the assignments were, but they didn't 

18 know where the men were working or what tasks 

19 they were performing. 

20 When the bookkeepers were -- 

21 recordkeepers were asked, they said there were 

22 only 2.6 pieces of data per worker per year. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 137

1 This, I believe, was in a 1982 or '84 inquiry 

2 by the Department of Energy possibly. 

3 CHAIR CLAWSON: Ray? 

4 MR. BEATTY: Yes. I agree with Dr. 

5 Ziemer there as far as getting some worker 

6 input. We have done some of this in the past 

7 in various interviews. Matter of fact, we met 

8 with NIOSH representatives from the metal 

9 trades department out of Washington, D.C. 

10 Several union reps coming from 

11 across the country went to NIOSH to talk about 

12 the various things that occurred at the site 

13 and maybe what was missing, maybe even some of 

14 the CADY interviews, something that wasn't 

15 revealed but like, say, a widow or the sons 

16 and daughters of former workers wouldn't know 

17 those things, but the former workers would. 

18 I would personally volunteer my 

19 time to sit down with SC&A or NIOSH to help 

20 out as far, well, co-worker model data and how 

21 it related, at least in remediation years. 

22 I think you could get a feel for 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 138

1 how, especially in a maintenance division -- 

2 In those early years, people were assigned to 

3 a building for security reasons, while on 

4 overtime they may have to go to another 

5 building. Now that was mostly maintenance 

6 and transportation. 

7 Chemical workers pretty much stayed 

8 within their own realm of responsibility in a 

9 specific building, and trying to connect into 

10 that building -- that might be a little 

11 easier. But I do know that other divisions or 

12 other groups and classifications were bounced 

13 around, but I do see the value of this 

14 information as it relates to trying to do a 

15 connection and assigning dose. 

16 I do have a question. I don't know 

17 who this is for. Someone, try to tell me when 

18 HIS-20 come about, because I worked under HIS19 20. 

20 MR. NETON: I worked on HIS-20 when 

21 I was there. 

22 MR. BEATTY: Okay. My question has 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 139

1 been answered, and I know the time frame now, 

2 roughly in the late Eighties. 

3 MR. NETON; HIS-20 was backloaded 

4 with the historical -- 

5 MR. BEATTY: Well, and that is what 

6 I want to allude to. I am kind of questioning 

7 the reliability of that back data that was 

8 downloaded into this HIS-20, because we have 

9 challenged that in the past as labor 

10 representatives and with the federal court 

11 over it. 

12 So there lies a problem, I think, 

13 with maybe some of the HIS-20 data. We worked 

14 under it in a scanning process out there with 

15 our badges. So when we entered a building, 

16 our specific ID number, our badge number, was 

17 entered into the HIS-20 database as an entry 

18 time, and when we exposed a certain length of 

19 time -- very valuable information. 

20 I just kind of challenge, though, 

21 the fact of the old data being used as to the 

22 reliability of that data. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 140

1 MR. ROLFES: I think that was an 

2 important point, Ray. I think we did -- We 

3 were asked by the Advisory Board to take a 

4 look at that, and we have provided our 

5 analysis of the hard copy data to the 

6 electronic data that was back-entered. 

7 MR. BEATTY: And even a NIOSH study 

8 revealed some shortcomings of using HIS-20 as 

9 it related to trying to assign medical dose -- 

10 or dose and medical records and training 

11 records to the workforces. There was a 

12 problem of trying to accomplish that task. 

13 CHAIR CLAWSON: Paul? 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, and Ray, I 

15 wasn't necessarily suggesting additional 

16 interviews, but more making sure that the 

17 petitioners have this information. I think 

18 several of you here could help inform us on 

19 these documents, based on your own knowledge 

20 as to whether the approach made sense. 

21 You mentioned, for example, workers 

22 are assigned to a particular plant but 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 141

1 overtime may be somewhere else. That kind of 

2 information might be helpful as we make a 

3 decision on this. 

4 So I was just suggesting that we 

5 not finalize this sort of approach until we 

6 have some input. In fairness, unless they 

7 have the papers, they can't really inform us 

8 very well. 

9 MS. BALDRIDGE: There was a recent 

10 meeting last Wednesday that NIOSH, I believe, 

11 sponsored at the Fernald site, and I had the 

12 opportunity to meet people that I had not 

13 spoken with previously, and I don't know how 

14 many said, yes, they did a site profile, but 

15 they didn't have that Dad worked in 8 or they 

16 had missed me in Plant 4. 

17 The frustration is that once the 

18 dose reconstruction goes to the DOL, you 

19 cannot get it corrected. I mean, you may as 

20 well talk until you are purple. They will not 

21 listen to you. They will not acknowledge the 

22 documentation that is sent to even prove 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 142

1 anything contrary to what has been submitted 

2 with the dose reconstruction. 

3 CHAIR CLAWSON: Okay. So, Bob 

4 Presley. 

5 MEMBER PRESLEY: One of the things 

6 that I would like to see Ray do and some of 

7 the people that work up there is the list that 

8 you have here. I'm going to be honest with 

9 you. I don't see a foundry worker on this 

10 thing. I don't see chemical workers on this 

11 thing. 

12 Those are two that I personally 

13 know probably got very, very high doses, 

14 especially in the early years. So you know, I 

15 would like to see you all do some work with 

16 them to get a little bit better list of who we 

17 think got the highest exposure. 

18 MR. MORRIS: Well, there is, I 

19 would think, helpers and such job 

20 classifications. 

21 CHAIR CLAWSON: And also it is like 

22 every other site we've got into. We've got a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 143

1 sub-group of all of those that are basically 

2 roving people that go everywhere. That is 

3 something we've got into in almost every site 

4 here, your laborers and, as we have said, the 

5 laundry and so forth like that. 

6 We are going to have a group that 

7 is the most highest exposed. I think we need 

8 to be able to look at that. So I guess at 

9 this point, John, from what I am getting a 

10 feel from everybody and what the comments have 

11 had, and Ray has expressed a desire and so 

12 forth to be able to help with it, maybe if we 

13 are not going to be able to do it by plant or 

14 whatever, maybe we need to change this to 

15 highest exposed, get a better grasp of the 

16 classes that would be involved in that, and 

17 then go from there. 

18 Would this be a problem? 

19 MR. MAURO: No. I mean, what we 

20 would do, we would regroup. I would very much 

21 like to work with Mark on your -- It sounds 

22 like that the orientation would be worker 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 144

1 category and highest exposed workers as it 

2 relates to your co-worker model as being the 

3 sampling plan, the thrust of the sampling 

4 plan, as opposed to the way it is laid out 

5 here. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Perhaps. 

7 MR. MAURO: Perhaps, yes. I guess 

8 it is a probing. Really, what I am hearing is 

9 -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- you would 

10 like SC&A to probe this issue further, working 

11 with the Work Group and working with NIOSH on 

12 how would we shift perhaps the emphasis on the 

13 sampling plan in a different direction. 

14 That might deal with the issue you 

15 just brought up regarding the categories of 

16 workers, the issue that Jim brought up 

17 regarding the co-worker model, and get away 

18 from, I guess, the idea of completeness by 

19 strata, because that was the theme here, 

20 completeness by strata, creating the strata 

21 that we thought were meaningful and then 

22 determining percent completeness of the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 145

1 dataset. 

2 It sounds like that is not going to 

3 be as valuable as this other strategy. If we 

4 a -- Give us a week to probe it a bit. Bob 

5 has been looking at the database. Bob, 

6 working together with Mark and our folks, 

7 maybe we could come up with a new strategy 

8 that we could communicate in an e-mail to the 

9 Work Group who have a different strategy and 

10 get some feedback. 

11 So I don't think we are talking 

12 about a large burden, a large delay. This is 

13 good. If it turns out we are going down the 

14 wrong path, fine. We will shift direction. 

15 So if that is okay with the Work Group -- 

16 Certainly, I want to make sure that -- 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON; I don't see it as 

18 a completely different approach. I see it 

19 more as a stepwise, but probing to see if it 

20 is doable is a first step. 

21 MR. MAURO: The idea of 

22 completeness by these strata -- sounds like 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 146

1 that is an old concept that perhaps we should 

2 move away from. I'm not sure, you know. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm not sure that 

4 -- I mean, I think that what you want to do is 

5 look at people with the highest exposure and 

6 see if they were monitored adequately. Right? 

7 If you want to call that completeness or not, 

8 I don't know, but we are focusing on that high 

9 end group instead of all groups right now. 

10 MR. MAURO: I understand. 

11 CHAIR CLAWSON: We've still got to 

12 have a completeness. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: And don't forget -

14 - not to throw a monkey wrench in all this, 

15 but the data completeness review -- if you 

16 look down, I think, in the next -- it might be 

17 listed in a different place, but it was also 

18 to look at external dose completeness. 

19 MR. MAURO: Oh, yes. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: And beyond '68 or 

21 whatever it is. So there's two other parts of 

22 that. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 147

1 MR. MAURO: I only -- I was talking 

2 milligrams per liter, but yes, the other data 

3 would be there, too. All the data would be 

4 there. 

5 MS. BALDRIDGE: Putting people in 

6 lists, categorizing them -- I know they can't 

7 -- You can't just use one category to 

8 determine what their dose was, because they 

9 were stepping out of that role or they worked 

10 in production, and then they moved into 

11 machining, and then they moved into something 

12 else, and the records don't necessarily show 

13 that. 

14 So to say -- Who has determined the 

15 model to say that inspectors have the least 

16 amount of exposure or that another group of 

17 workers had an exposure greater than someone 

18 else, when they are crossing those boundaries? 

19 MR. ROLFES: That is true, but the 

20 bioassay results would have integrated all 

21 previous exposures and be reflected in a 

22 person's urine. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 148

1 MS. BALDRIDGE: That is assuming 

2 that the people who were examined -- that 

3 their data was accurate. Now in my father's 

4 case, it was not included in his dose 

5 reconstruction that he had worked Production 

6 before Plant 6 was in operation. He was not 

7 dosed for UF-6 which resulted in the renal 

8 damage, which that issue is still kind of 

9 floating around and how renal damage causes a 

10 retention of salts which may affect the 

11 excretion levels in the uranium analysis. 

12 Those issues have not been 

13 addressed and established in such a way as to 

14 validate the use of the uranium urinalysis in 

15 100 percent of the cases. 

16 When I asked you if you could 

17 distinguish which workers potentially had 

18 renal damage whose results could have been 

19 compromised because of it, you said you don't 

20 know. That's not in their records. 

21 So do you go back and look to see 

22 who might have been exposed to something that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 149

1 could have caused renal damage and question 

2 the validity of their uranium urinalysis? I 

3 mean, this process -- you know, the little bit 

4 of research that was presented in the document 

5 covered two people in China, each of whom had 

6 one exposure. 

7 You have people who are working day 

8 after day after day in an exposure level, and 

9 there is no data, there is no research, there 

10 has been no study to determine what effect 

11 that has had on their -- 

12 MR. ROLFES; I think we presented 

13 at a previous Working Group meeting that there 

14 were autopsy studies for people that were 

15 highly exposed in the uranium production 

16 facilities. That was the important thing that 

17 was of concern for uranium exposures in 

18 general across the United States at the DOE 

19 facilities. 

20 There were several studies that 

21 were done. I don't have them right in front 

22 of me. I've got them somewhere in my box of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 150

1 records here, but that was one of their 

2 concerns, to determine how much uranium was 

3 being retained within an individual's body 

4 after chronic exposure. 

5 There were some individuals that 

6 had excreted -- I think some of them were up 

7 near 100 milligrams of uranium in urine over 

8 their working history. 

9 There were kidney sections taken 

10 and also tissue samples taken of some former 

11 workers to determine if they could discern 

12 whether this individual had renal impairment 

13 or kidney damage based on the chronic 

14 exposures, and they were unable to determine 

15 which individuals had been exposed to uranium 

16 versus those that had not been. 

17 So it basically found that there 

18 was no differences from the normal population 

19 for those individuals who were exposed to 

20 uranium versus those who were not. 

21 MS. BALDRIDGE: Well, the study 

22 they did with 17 men at Fernald, and all 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 

 151

1 had renal damage. My father wasn't one of 

2 those 17, and who knows how many other men 

3 were damaged that were not included in the 

4 preliminary determination that that event had 

5 even occurred. 

6 When I spoke to the researcher, he 

7 didn't even know that there was a group as 

8 large as 17 people to search out the 

9 documentation for the study. 

10 MR. MAURO: I might be -- During 

11 the last Work Group meeting -- It turns out, 

12 in preparing for this, I very carefully read 

13 the transcript, and in my write-up I could 

14 actually read to you where we came out at the 

15 last meeting, because a great deal of 

16 discussion was held on that subject. Let me 

17 just read it to you, in response to this 

18 concern, which had a lot of discussion. 

19 "NIOSH indicated that reports 

20 addressing these incidents" -- these were the 

21 17 incidents -- "were placed on the O: Drive. 

22 Further discussion was held regarding the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 152

1 group of 17 workers that were exposed to high 

2 levels of UF-6 at Fernald pilot plant in 

3 August 1966." 

4 So there was some discussion here. 

5 Anyone who wants it can go into the record. 

6 It is there. Bottom line, though, is NIOSH 

7 stated that follow-up investigations of the 

8 urinary excretion patterns of these workers 

9 did not reveal any unusual excretion patterns, 

10 excretion patterns meaning the highest 

11 excretions were on the first day post12 exposure. That what would be normally 

13 expected as opposed to delayed. 

14 Then there was almost another layer 

15 of discussion. It's all in the transcript. I 

16 don't know if the transcript has been posted 

17 yet, but I have privilege to it because I was 

18 given it in advance, so I could do this. Let 

19 me read this. 

20 "In an effort to further address 

21 this issue, the transuranic registry was 

22 discussed and the degree to which autopsy data 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 153

1 revealed kidney damage experienced by workers 

2 in the registry." 

3 So apparently that was a subject of 

4 great interest in the transuranic registry. 

5 "NIOSH cited a specific paper on 

6 this topic where no such damage was observed. 

7 The paper cited is 'Histological Kidney Study 

8 on Uranium and Non-Uranium Workers' in Health 

9 Physics, volume 70, Number 4, page 466." 

10 Then there was a conclusionary 

11 statement, which I have in bold in my matrix 

12 that says: "THE WORKING GROUP CONCLUDED THAT 

13 NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THIS 

14 PARTICULAR ISSUE EXCEPT THAT NIOSH WOULD 

15 DOCUMENT THAT WHEN A PERSON EXPERIENCED VERY 

16 HIGH EXPOSURES, THAT PERHAPS MIGHT BE 

17 INDICATIVE OF A POSSIBILITY OF KIDNEY DAMAGE, 

18 AND SPECIFICALLY LOOK AT THE BIOASSAY DATA 

19 WITH THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE IN MIND." 

20 That is what came out of the last 

21 meeting. So that's where we are on this 

22 issue. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 154

1 MS. BALDRIDGE: I would like to 

2 make an addition. In that discussion, I also 

3 brought up the point that I had personally 

4 contacted and spoken with one of the authors 

5 of the document, and he felt that his 

6 conclusions had been misrepresented by a group 

7 that expounded on that in the development of 

8 this paper. 

9 I had used one of the footnotes, 

10 the reference document, and checked with the 

11 researcher. So when people are taking 

12 research and they are misrepresenting it to 

13 present a position that supports their own, I 

14 think that is questionable. 

15 MR. MAURO: We just went over one 

16 of the issues that I was planning on 

17 discussing right now, regarding the kidney 

18 damage issue and its effect. I guess I will 

19 just speak for SC&A. 

20 The place where we are right now is 

21 no further investigation on this matter as a 

22 result of the previous direction we were 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 155

1 given, and we have not taken any additional 

2 steps. 

3 We are really now getting into the 

4 finer structure of issue number one dealing 

5 with uranium bioassay data. So we are into 

6 the matrix. We have sort of left -- The first 

7 subject was the sampling plan. Sounds like it 

8 is in my hands to work with you folks. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think so, and 

10 the petitioner. To go back to Sandra's 

11 initial question, I don't think it is going to 

12 be -- It may not be perfect, but I think if we 

13 get SC&A to work with NIOSH but also with you 

14 guys, selection of the jobs that we think, 

15 like the highest exposed. 

16 I know that is not a perfect way, 

17 because like you said, some people could have 

18 a certain job type and go many different 

19 places. But I think also you would probably 

20 have a sense of, at least during certain time 

21 periods, you know, that was a really dirty 

22 job, they were real high exposed, you know. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 156

1 So we might be able to at least get 

2 some of those job types in and start that 

3 process that way. I think, yes, we should 

4 move forward with that in that way. 

5 MR. MAURO: Fine. So that is an 

6 action item. I'm writing this down in my 

7 notes as an action item for SC&A to follow up 

8 on refining as necessary the sampling plan, 

9 and we will do that and get back to the 

10 Working Group with an e-mail shortly after we 

11 have a chance to deliberate amongst all 

12 interested parties. 

13 I presume this particular handout 

14 that I had that was not PA reviewed -- I 

15 presume a copy of this can be made available 

16 to Ms. Baldridge. It sounds like that is 

17 something -- 

18 MS. HOWELL: There are some things 

19 that need to be changed. 

20 MR. MAURO: Well, I'm not saying 

21 now. I'm just saying that it would be helpful 

22 for all interested parties involved with the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 157

1 sampling plan to have this paper. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Only the first 

3 three pages of that, I think, are pertinent 

4 for what we are talking about. There is a 

5 page that instructs certain people to report 

6 to Medical for bioassay or something, and 

7 certainly, you are going to be redacting 

8 almost that whole page anyway, I would guess. 

9 MS. HOWELL: I haven't seen it. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, the fifth 

11 page is a list of people who have been 

12 instructed to report to Medical for bioassay. 

13 That doesn't help us in any particular way. 

14 MR. MAURO: What I guess is there 

15 is a package of material apparently that we 

16 will need to get to the claimants and other 

17 interested parties that relates to the 

18 sampling plan. 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. The stuff 

20 you handed out, plus Hans' material. 

21 MR. MAURO: Plus Hans'. What I 

22 will do is I will get that material into your 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 158

1 hands, say this is what I believe to be the 

2 material, and then you can clear it and move 

3 it out. 

4 MS. HOWELL: And this document, we 

5 will need to have some changes made. 

6 MR. MAURO: That would be, 

7 certainly, another piece which is separate. 

8 So that is separate from the sampling plan. 

9 That more goes to the bigger picture. That is 

10 also the matrix. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm sorry. Just 

12 as a point of meaning protocol, in the past 

13 meetings I have been keeping the matrix 

14 updated. I just don't see that I added in 

15 that column on that first -- As you said, I 

16 added it in October 28th, and I added in -- 

17 MR. MAURO: Well, we have it right 

18 now. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. I'm 

20 working on it now. I think it's a Work Group 

21 responsibility, really, to manage the matrix 

22 going forward rather than NIOSH or SC&A. I 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 159

1 think we should manage it, and I'll help Brad 

2 with that. 

3 MR. MAURO: By the way, to a macro 

4 level different strategies are being used in 

5 different work groups to deal with this. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: For example, the 

7 Procedures Work Group, Steve is actually 

8 handling the data, Steve from SC&A. 

9 MR. MAURO: I am working with Steve 

10 Hedafeld. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: And they are doing 

12 the entries. 

13 MR. MAURO: But if this group -- 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: At the request of 

15 the Chair of that work group. 

16 MR. MAURO: Yes, yes, oh, yes, and 

17 that's fine. 

18 CHAIR CLAWSON: Mark is helping me. 

19 MR. MAURO: Okay. Anyway, as I 

20 said, I took it upon myself to write this big 

21 piece. It was done as much for myself as it 

22 is I thought it would be helpful to the group. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 160

1 But what I'm hearing is I guess the next 

2 phase of this is in your hands as well as 

3 SC&A's hands. 

4 CHAIR CLAWSON: That is correct. 

5 MR. MAURO: That's fine. 

6 CHAIR CLAWSON: The path forward 

7 now is we've got to begin to sit down with the 

8 petitioners and so forth, the other interested 

9 parties, and set up this sampling plan. We 

10 are going to change a little bit of direction 

11 there. 

12 We've got this other issue, but 

13 right now, according to my watch, it's about 

14 time for lunch. Is that correct or am I still 

15 on Mountain Time? 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is time for 

17 breakfast where you were. 

18 CHAIR CLAWSON: Yes. So what I was 

19 going to suggest is that we could pick up with 

20 this right after lunch, and then be able to 

21 proceed on there, if that is all right with 

22 everybody. Don't want to miss lunch. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 161

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. So we are 

2 breaking for lunch. 

3 CHAIR CLAWSON: Yes. 

4 MR. KATZ: And we will resume at 

5 one o'clock. 

6 CHAIR CLAWSON: Yes. 

7 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everyone on 

8 the phone, and we will start back up at one. 

9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

10 matter went off the record at 11:51 a.m.) 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

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 

 162

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 

6 (1:02 p.m.) 

7 MR. KATZ: Good afternoon. This is 

8 the Fernald Working Group, and we are starting 

9 back up again. 

10 CHAIR CLAWSON: Okay. This is -- 

11 Appreciate everybody coming back in. I am 

12 going to turn the time back over to John. 

13 I felt like -- Are we going to 

14 start with complete of one or -- 

15 MR. MAURO: No, no. We didn't even 

16 warm up to one yet. This is a macro issue 

17 related to one that really crosses all the 

18 data completeness issue. 

19 We are really now going to get into 

20 1, and the big picture. One is doing dose 

21 reconstruction to workers when you have to 

22 contend with some of the workers may have been 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 163

1 exposed to enriched uranium. Some of them may 

2 have been exposed to recycled uranium. And 

3 there was also an issue related to data 

4 quality, related to transcription of the data 

5 from the original database, the hard copy, to 

6 the HIS-20 database. 

7 So these are the issues that fall 

8 under number 4-1. So let me -- Let's first go 

9 to recycled uranium. 

10 After reading the transcript -- and 

11 I tried to capture it as best I could in the 

12 matrix -- NIOSH's position is that the false 

13 assumption that all workers that worked with 

14 uranium worked with recycled uranium, and 

15 please correct me if I am misrepresenting what 

16 I believe was in the transcript. 

17 It is going to be assumed that all 

18 workers, even beginning as early as in 1955, 

19 even though recycled uranium really didn't 

20 start, I guess, in any serious way being 

21 processed until the Sixties, and you are going 

22 to start saying all these milligram per liter 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 164

1 uranium numbers that you have in bioassay -- 

2 it is going to be assumed that accompanying 

3 data was 100 parts per billion of Plutonium4 239 and the associated other radium -- 

5 MR. ROLFES: Correct. 

6 MR. MAURO: -- in appropriate 

7 proportions as a default assumption. 

8 That was the position. Now that 

9 was the position that was described at the 

10 last meeting. 

11 The mission that was given to SC&A 

12 is to take a look at that and see if that 

13 seems to be a reasonable assumption to make as 

14 a bounding assumption. 

15 Basically, what we did is we -- and 

16 if Hans Behling is on the phone -- Hans gave 

17 me some material to hand out. It is -- I 

18 guess it is a DOE report by a fellow named 

19 Bogart, and we have extracted certain pages 

20 from it that we looked at. 

21 I would like to hand that out to 

22 everyone. I think I have 10 copies, and again 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 165

1 it is not PA cleared, but it is material -- 

2 not PA cleared. What I am going to do is just 

3 draw your attention to a particular page. 

4 I will give you some of what I 

5 believe represents the SC&A perspective on 

6 this, but at that point I would like either 

7 Arjun or Hans to help me out a bit after 

8 everyone gets a copy. 

9 What everyone is looking at is 

10 selected pages from this report referred to as 

11 the Bogart Report, which is a characterization 

12 of the recycled uranium that -- the various 

13 campaigns and the various materials that were 

14 sent to NIOSH for processing. 

15 I would like to propose -- Just to 

16 move through this pretty quickly to see where 

17 we come out, I would like you to first go the 

18 -- I guess it's the -- starting with the 

19 first page, the third page that says "Recycled 

20 Feeds" as the title, and also has -- On the 

21 upper right hand corner it says Page 9. 

22 What we are looking at are some 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 166

1 data that represents -- The reason I bring 

2 this up is that, when you ask yourself, is 100 

3 parts per billion a good number -- and one of 

4 the questions that came up at the last meeting 

5 is, wait a minute, what about the Tower ash, 

6 because the 100 parts per billion -- The theme 

7 went like this. The 100 parts per billion 

8 appears to be a pretty good number to place an 

9 upper bound on exposure to recycled uranium, 

10 except for Paducah Tower ash, which was a 

11 special problem. 

12 So I guess this first page we are 

13 looking at is some of the data showing the -- 

14 I guess these were the different campaigns 

15 where ash from Paducah was sent, and what its 

16 -- If you go to the far righthand column; it's 

17 called plutonium parts per billion. Well, 

18 there is a uranium basis and sample basis. 

19 I guess it's the uranium basis that 

20 we should be looking at from a parts per 

21 billion. You could see that there are a 

22 number of campaigns of processing that were 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 167

1 well above 100. 

2 So then we will get to the 100 in a 

3 minute, but the most important point that was 

4 being made -- Everyone, I think, around the 

5 table agrees that, yes, the Paducah ash was a 

6 special issue where the level of plutonium in 

7 the uranium, recycled uranium, was unusually 

8 high. 

9 In this case, we could see it as 

10 high as 7,000 in one particular batch, and 

11 that overall the material that came in that 

12 was processed -- and this apparently occurred 

13 in about 1980. So it was a fairly well 

14 defined time period. 

15 So to characterize NIOSH's position 

16 on this as best I can, is that, yes, there was 

17 elevated levels, well above 100 parts per 

18 billion, but it was confined to primarily -- 

19 to entirely the tower ash that came in the 

20 1980s, and that -- So we know when it came in, 

21 where it came in, and we also know that when 

22 it was handled, people wore respirators, which 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 168

1 had, I believe, a protection factor of at 

2 least about 50. 

3 MR. ROLFES: They had airline 

4 respirators. 

5 MR. MAURO: Airline. So it would 

6 be better than 50. 

7 MR. ROLFES: Right. 

8 MR. MAURO: Airline respirator will 

9 give you 1,000. 

10 MR. ROLFES: Correct. 

11 MR. MAURO: Good. I didn't get 

12 that. The point being, though, so by assuming 

13 everybody gets -- In other words, this does 

14 not defeat -- the argument being this does not 

15 defeat the assumption of 100, because if you 

16 apply a 100-fold or 1,000-fold decontamination 

17 factor to these numbers, you are well below 

18 100. 

19 So NIOSH's position, as I 

20 understand it from reviewing the record, is 

21 that we could deal with this problem, and the 

22 100 parts per billion assumption looks -- you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 169

1 know, we could live with it, because we have a 

2 way to contain and manage the people who were 

3 exposed to tower ash because of you know when 

4 it came in, you know who handled it, and you 

5 also know that they were using respiratory 

6 protection. Yes? 

7 MR. ROLFES: John, also 

8 furthermore, there are bioassay results for 

9 plutonium for the individuals that were 

10 involved in that. 

11 MR. MAURO: On top of it all. 

12 Okay. So on that basis, it certainly sounds 

13 to be a reasonable approach to sort of 

14 bounding their problem. 

15 Let's go to -- 

16 MR. RICH; John, this is Bryce 

17 Rich. Could I just add one note, having dealt 

18 with the recycled uranium issue for a long 

19 time, the tower ash was quickly blended, and 

20 the 100 parts per billion was driven by a 

21 blended value, and that was available to more 

22 than the initial people who handled the ash 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 170

1 itself. 

2 So just to indicate to you that the 

3 100 parts per billion, when you consider a 

4 short exposure period and for the entire 

5 period at the site, 100 parts per billion is 

6 very, very conservative. 

7 MR. MAURO: I understand, and we 

8 are going to discuss that a little bit, but 

9 with that said, I would like to jump to two 

10 more pages. Just flip over. On the top of 

11 the FA, you will see page 007. 

12 Now what this shows is the average 

13 parts per billion of plutonium in uranium by 

14 year from this same report. You could see 

15 that in general what -- you know, you can look 

16 at it for that year. Any year, 100 parts per 

17 billion overall would be certainly bounding by 

18 at least tenfold. 

19 Then, of course, you hit that 1980 

20 year. You see you got 1,122. That harkens 

21 back to the previous table. So I mean, this 

22 page seems to support that, yes, there was 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 171

1 something very unusual that occurred in 1980 

2 in dealing with tower ash, but when you get 

3 away from that particular year and the ash and 

4 you return to other forms of uranium, recycled 

5 uranium, in each year the numbers are well 

6 below 100 parts per billion. 

7 So on first blush, the implication 

8 is it looks like your solution -- your 

9 approach to this problem is well in hand. 

10 However, in discussing this matter, the one 

11 issue that came up is -- Now let's look at, 

12 for example, -- Let's look at 1970. 

13 We've got 1.2 million kilograms of 

14 uranium, total uranium that was processed, and 

15 the overall average for that was 3.964 parts 

16 per billion. 

17 Is there any -- You know, what 

18 level of confidence do we have that some 

19 subset of that 1.2 million kilograms may not 

20 have been enriched above 100 parts per 

21 billion, where the idea of going back to it -- 

22 we've talked about this before -- is it 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 172

1 possible there may have been some people that 

2 were handling some subset of this large amount 

3 that could possibly have been above 100 parts 

4 per billion. 

5 So it was like hidden within these 

6 averages, which are clearly by year well below 

7 100. is it possible that hidden within some 

8 of these averages are elevated levels? Is 

9 there something about the process whereby that 

10 -- I guess this is our question -- follow-up 

11 question to NIOSH, is that: You know, what 

12 level of assurance is there that some subset 

13 of this, other than perhaps the tower ash, 

14 might well have been above 100 parts per 

15 billion, some shipment from some other 

16 facility, maybe from Hanford or some other 

17 facility that might have been relatively small 

18 compared to the total amount that was 

19 processed in that year, but could have been 

20 above 100 and, therefore, in that year there 

21 might have been some people that could have 

22 been exposed to something well above 100 parts 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 173

1 per billion. 

2 I guess that is the question -- 

3 SC&A's question back to NIOSH regarding this 

4 issue. Anything else? 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, maybe along 

6 the same lines, but a more fundamental 

7 question. Just how was that number in the 

8 final column there determined? Was it -- Did 

9 they assay every batch that came in or did 

10 they -- you know, is this an average of two 

11 sample points in the year or is this -- I 

12 don't know. I'm just asking. 

13 MR. ROLFES: Bryce, this is Mark. 

14 I know for the recycled uranium report, that 

15 was certainly very well studied by the 

16 Department of Energy, certainly in recent 

17 years. Do we have more detailed information 

18 by year that has plutonium amounts in 

19 relationship to the uranium content of the 

20 shipments? 

21 MR. RICH: This is Bryce. There 

22 are more detailed reports in the 2000 reports 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 174

1 on recycled uranium to for my spot-on studies. 

2 Also there are reports in the plant that were 

3 studied carefully from a process standpoint. 

4 We were careful to make sure that -

5 -Well, that's where the 100 parts per billion 

6 was bounding in the analysis that was done. 

7 It is possible that for very short 

8 periods of time that some values were above 

9 100 parts per billion, particularly with the 

10 blending operation from the particular tower 

11 ash program, but those are very short in 

12 duration and well controlled. 

13 Then other parts of the program, 

14 including -- well, the break-out of the metal 

15 production program, the magnesium fluoride 

16 that was recovered, and there were some 

17 concentrating points in the processes, but 

18 those have been carefully evaluated for 

19 maximum concentration, and that fell below the 

20 100 parts per billion, plus the fact that 

21 those process streams were relatively small in 

22 volume and had not -- and did not represent 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 175

1 the major process load of the plant. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Is that an 

3 evaluation that you wrote up, Bryce, or is 

4 that-- 

5 MR. RICH: It is summarized in -- 

6 MR. KATZ: I am sorry. Can't hear. 

7 Bryce, is there someone in the background on 

8 your phone? 

9 MR. RICH; No. That is not on my 

10 phone. 

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. There is someone 

12 on the line who hasn't muted their phone. If 

13 you would, please, you are interfering with 

14 the person who is trying to speak right now. 

15 Someone is still talking right now. We are 

16 listening to someone talking on the line. 

17 Would you please mute your phone, Star-6. 

18 I'm still hearing you. It's a 

19 woman speaking. Please, can you mute your 

20 phone. 

21 MR. RICH; I can continue, if you 

22 like. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 176

1 MR. KATZ: Okay, why don't you 

2 continue, Bryce. You are much louder than 

3 she is, and it should work. 

4 MR. RICH: I don't quite remember 

5 exactly where I was, other than to indicate 

6 that all of the available data at Fernald has 

7 been accumulated, and we are in the process 

8 of updating the test basis documents. 

9 There has been some -- the OTIB 53 

10 is still -- well, if it has gone through our 

11 system, it is still in final review, but that 

12 has some additional references and information 

13 related to the generic process streams, of 

14 which Fernald played a very key role, because 

15 Fernald was one of the DOE sites that pretty 

16 well handled all of the process streams that 

17 you could call recycled uranium. 

18 I would mention one other thing. 

19 That is that there were a number of periods in 

20 the Fernald process system where they 

21 processed uranium ore, and injected that as 

22 blending material into the process stream 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 177

1 within the plant and, of course, that dilutes 

2 considerably. 

3 The material that came from the 

4 generating site, primarily Hanford and 

5 Savannah River, were carefully monitored and 

6 documented. All of that material that came 

7 into the plant as primary recycled uranium was 

8 at five parts per billion or less. 

9 They were working to a 10 part per 

10 billion maximum limit, and of course, we 

11 documented not only plutonium, neptunium and 

12 technetium as a primary recycled uranium 

13 contaminants, but the bounding levels of other 

14 contaminants as well, fission products like 

15 ruthenium and the like. 

16 So there is a body of documentation 

17 that gives assurance that the choice of 

18 default contaminant levels is very 

19 conservative. 

20 MR. MAURO: Bryce, a question that 

21 came up in some of our discussions is, 

22 certainly, the feed material, as you have 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 178

1 pointed out, controls over what was shipped, 

2 but you had mentioned -- but there is also 

3 this -- once material arrives, there is some 

4 blending which would valuate it down. But, of 

5 course, there's also other aspects to the 

6 process, which was the concentrate. 

7 Does part of the OTIB 53 report 

8 address some of the steps at Fernald where the 

9 potential for re-concentration existed? 

10 MR. RICH: The potential for 

11 concentration at Fernald is dealt with in a 

12 separate paper. The steps associated with -- 

13 you know, the likely concentration mechanisms, 

14 of course, have been -- you are trying to -- 

15 you run it through the liquid extraction 

16 plant, in which point you are trying to purify 

17 the uranium. 

18 At Fernald, the purification system 

19 was not "tuned," if you will put that in 

20 quotation marks, to the recycled contaminants, 

21 but more heavy metals and other contaminants 

22 that dealt more with the neutronics associated 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 179

1 with the use of the recycled uranium further 

2 in the reactors, the raffinates being one of 

3 them, and we have satisfied ourselves from 

4 analyses at Fernald specifically that the -- 

5 first of all, there was an amount of uranium 

6 in the raffinates that still bounded where the 

7 100 parts per billion was bounding, plus the 

8 fact that, of course, the operators who 

9 attended the raffinate system also attended 

10 other points in the process where the primary 

11 exposure was to uranium. 

12 We feel like we've done an 

13 exhaustive study there, and are satisfied that 

14 the bounding will be very conservative. 

15 MR. MAURO: Yes, I have nothing 

16 more to offer here. 

17 MR. MAKHIJANI: John, can I make a 

18 comment? 

19 MR. MAURO: Sure. Sure. 

20 MR. MAKHIJANI: There is a page in 

21 the Bogart report that I failed to provide you 

22 with, and it does include the actual absolute 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 180

1 quantities of plutonium content that were used 

2 as feed materials by year, and it really shows 

3 that in the year of 1980, which obviously, as 

4 you already pointed out, is a high point where 

5 the total number of grams of plutonium that 

6 were part of the feed material amounted to 

7 close to 26 grams. 

8 That towers over all other years, 

9 according to this particular figure that I am 

10 looking at. The next closest one was 1970 

11 where the total number of plutonium in terms 

12 of grams were less than 6 grams. 

13 So we are talking about a 

14 difference of 3.5 or close to fourfold 

15 difference between the peak year of 1980 that 

16 involved plutonium contaminated feed material 

17 versus the second next largest year of 1970 

18 where the quantity of plutonium went from 

19 nearly 26 grams to less than six grams. 

20 So I believe that for that year -- 

21 Obviously, that is a bounding value, but as I 

22 already pointed out, the 100 parts per billion 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 181

1 would appear to, obviously, cover us for all 

2 other years as a bounding value, other than 

3 1980. 

4 MR. RICH: Hans, if I could add 

5 just a little bit, we calculated, and it is 

6 well documented, that the relative small MAPs 

7 volume of tower ash that came from Paducah and 

8 a couple of other sites, in effect, doubled 

9 the amount of plutonium in the plant for a 

10 period of time until that worked its way 

11 through the system. 

12 So in other words, when you were 

13 dealing with a normal input of five parts per 

14 million, the total quantity in grams of 

15 plutonium in the plant suddenly in that plant 

16 year did double. But what we have satisfied 

17 ourselves is that even in the year of 1980 

18 with the blending and the careful control, 

19 that the 100 parts per billion adequately 

20 provide a very conservative bounding. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Hey, Bryce, this 

22 is Mark Griffon. Earlier when we had the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 182

1 little interruption, I was asking: The 

2 evaluation you are talking about -- is that in 

3 this white paper that is on the O: Drive, this 

4 RU white paper? 

5 MR. RICH: Mark, what evaluation 

6 are you referring to? 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, your 

8 evaluation basically demonstrating that the 

9 100 parts per billion -- 

10 MR. RICH: Oh, yes. Yes, it is 

11 summarized, that information of which you are 

12 speaking. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Has SC&A reviewed 

14 that or just reviewed the source document? I 

15 don't know. 

16 MR. MAURO: As far as I know, the 

17 only document we looked at was the one I just 

18 handed out. We did not go deeper. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

20 MR. ROLFES: The recycled uranium 

21 white paper was placed onto the O: Drive. 

22 Looks like there was one that was placed in 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 183

1 March of 2008, it appears. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Is that -- that 

3 white paper, is that the predecessor to the 

4 TIB or, no, they are separate things? There's 

5 a TIB. 

6 MR. MORRIS: The white paper was 

7 specialized at Fernald. 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: For Fernald. 

9 Okay. 

10 MR. MORRIS: We have been hashing 

11 this back and forth for quite a few months 

12 now, and -- 

13 MR. RICH: Years. 

14 MR. MORRIS: Years. Sorry, Bryce. 

15 I would say that there is probably not 

16 substantial differences that have come out 

17 over the years. There have been tune-ups. 

18 MR. RICH: That is true, Bob. I 

19 would say that there have been a number of 

20 white papers dealing with the various topics 

21 that we have generated to address the Fernald 

22 issues, and -- well, Mark has a better idea of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 184

1 what has been placed on the O: Drive, but -- 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: The only reason 

3 I'm asking is because I am thinking that SC&A 

4 -- to finally close this out, I think it might 

5 be worthwhile looking at that, but I'm 

6 wondering, if this had been revised in the 

7 TIB, you might want to just look at the latest 

8 thing, you know. 

9 MR. RICH: Then there is not a TIB. 

10 There is a TIB that is in the final phases of 

11 review, which is OTIB 53, which deals with 

12 precisely uranium complex-wide. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: So this has more 

14 Fernald specific information. 

15 MR. RICH: Yes. There is a white 

16 paper that has been developed since. 

17 MR. MORRIS: It would be a 

18 significant review effort to do a TIB 53. You 

19 may want to refocus on -- 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON; I think you want 

21 to focus on this white paper then, yes. 

22 MR. ROLFES: This white paper is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 185

1 titled "White Paper: Dose Reconstruction 

2 Considerations For RU Contaminants at 

3 Fernald," and it is dated March -- 

4 MR. RICH: That sounds like it. 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's the title 

6 of the -- I was looking at the file name. 

7 MR. ROLFES: The file name is RU 

8 White Paper 3308-Final Draft.. 

9 CHAIR CLAWSON: Hey, Bryce, this is 

10 Brad Clawson. Didn't we send some product out 

11 there, too, and it kind of didn't work very 

12 good, from Idaho? 

13 MR. RICH: The recycled uranium 

14 came out of the Kent plant. There may have 

15 been a small quantity that went to Fernald, 

16 but they were very careful not to mix that 

17 material through INEL because of its very high 

18 enrichment, at 99 parts percent of it went to 

19 White Trail and directly to Savannah River to 

20 be used in -- as driver fuel, and there was a 

21 little bit that went to Rocky Flat and a 

22 little bit that went to Portsmouth. But I 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 186

1 don't have any records that indicate that 

2 there were any substantive amounts that went 

3 to Fernald. 

4 Fernald really could not handle the 

5 enrichment of the product from INEL. 

6 CHAIR CLAWSON: I just remembered, 

7 we classified it as trash, but it had enriched 

8 -- smaller enrichment of uranium, and we were 

9 trying -- 

10 MR. RICH: There could have been a 

11 -- It would really had to have been lower 

12 enriched, Brad. 

13 CHAIR CLAWSON: More like trigger 

14 fuel that we had worked with. 

15 MR. RICH: And, frankly, that 

16 didn't show up on any of the inventory. So if 

17 it were, it was a minor quantity and possibly 

18 used for experimentation. 

19 CHAIR CLAWSON: Okay. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Hey, Bryce, this 

21 is mark Griffon. I think we will end up 

22 asking SC&A to look at the white paper, but 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 187

1 the first question I had -- or a little while 

2 ago I asked the question about the annual 

3 parts per billion, the average levels. 

4 Do you have any sense of what they 

5 were derived from? Were all the batches in a 

6 year sampled or was this -- do you have any 

7 sense of that, how many samples went into -- 

8 MR. RICH; No, I don't have -- the 

9 information that I took came from the mass 

10 balance report at Fernald, and they extracted 

11 that information from plant data itself. 

12 I did not go back and look at the 

13 data that was used by the DOE mass balance 

14 team at Fernald. I worked with them during 

15 the period of time that they were doing that 

16 study, and was satisfied that their work was 

17 comprehensive. but I can't tell you how many 

18 samples and how many per year and that. 

19 I just know that there is a general 

20 knowledge base associated with what came in, 

21 even from the secondary shippers like, you 

22 know -- but the primary shippers, being 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 188

1 Savannah River and Hanford, injected the 

2 contaminants into the system. But of course, 

3 the material that came from the secondary 

4 sources were -- carried an additional load of 

5 contaminants, which was accounted for also. 

6 MR. MORRIS: On that topic, my 

7 sense of it is that nuclear materials control 

8 regulations would have specified the sample 

9 protocols, and also product specification 

10 drivers may have specified that. 

11 MR. RICH: They were -- all of the 

12 plants were working to the 10-part per billion 

13 contamination limit, even on the secondary 

14 sites, with the notable exception of those 

15 where there was a concentrating mechanism, 

16 fundamentally and primarily in the diffusion 

17 enrichment program. 

18 In those cases, they were quite 

19 conscious of the contamination concentration 

20 and, as a matter of fact, as a side note, 

21 Fernald objected to receiving the tower ash, 

22 but the amount of uranium during that period 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 189

1 of time carried a value that they were 

2 directed, and consequently their concern level 

3 and the retention program associated with the 

4 receipt of that material were extraordinary. 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: And that is part 

6 of the reason I asked, because I also remember 

7 there was a discrepancy with the Paducah 

8 sampling of that tower ash versus the Fernald 

9 sampling, if I recall. The numbers were quite 

10 a bit different. That is something I remember 

11 during the Paducah mass balance reading. 

12 MR. RICH: Yes. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: So that is why I 

14 was asking about the sampling and the 

15 frequency. 

16 MR. RICH: The sampling results 

17 that were used came from the Fernald sampling 

18 on receipt. 

19 MR. MAURO: I wrote that as an 

20 action item. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: The White Paper, 

22 yes. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 190

1 MR. MAURO: Okay. So I will get 

2 direction from the Board. Right now -- from 

3 the Work Group -- I have identified that we 

4 are going to track down that White Paper. I 

5 didn't get the full citation, but I will get 

6 in touch with you, and we will download it. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess with the 

8 focus, the clear focus, being on is the 150 

9 ppb. 

10 MR. MAURO: Oh, yes. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: You know, 

12 bounding, but also, I guess, I would look at 

13 the neptunium numbers and the other numbers 

14 for the other components. 

15 MR. MAURO: The ratios. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: It seems to me 

17 plutonium in this case is the more -- a higher 

18 dose consequence. I haven't looked at it. I 

19 don't know. I haven't had much of an 

20 opportunity, but it looks like plutonium. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Could you go ahead 

22 and give us that reference anyway? It was RU 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 191

1 something? 

2 MR. ROLFES: It was recycled 

3 uranium White Paper. It was RU White Paper. 

4 That is what it is listed under the O: Drive 

5 as. Let me log back in and confirm what I've 

6 said. 

7 MR. KATZ: While we are a break 

8 sort of in discussion, just let me remind 

9 folks on the phone, please mute your phone if 

10 you are not speaking or Star-6. There was a 

11 lady earlier who took a phone call while we 

12 were trying to have a discussion, and 

13 interfered with about five minutes of 

14 discussion. So please, mute your phone or 

15 Star-6. Thanks. 

16 MR. ROLFES: It is RU White Paper, 

17 and the date was 3/3/2008, and -- okay. It is 

18 ruwhitepaper3308_finaldraft.doc. 

19 MR. MAURO: Well, if I look for a 

20 RU White Paper, I'll find it. All right. I'm 

21 good. 

22 CHAIR CLAWSON: Okay. Move on to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 192

1 the next. 

2 MR. MAURO: Move on. We are still 

3 on uranium. Now we are on the issue of 

4 enrichment. In reviewing the transcripts from 

5 the last meeting, it was NIOSH's plan to 

6 assume that all individuals were -- the 

7 uranium they worked with was two percent 

8 enriched, starting in a given year. I forget 

9 the exact year. Then prior to that, it was 

10 one percent enriched, the feeling being that, 

11 though there is evidence that there may have 

12 been some campaigns where the enrichment could 

13 have been as high as five, seven or 19.9, if I 

14 remember, which is the upper limit, those 

15 campaigns were relatively short. 

16 So that the way I understand it 

17 when you described it is I visualize this 

18 person who is working, doing his job. Moving 

19 through his responsibility might be some 

20 material that is above two percent, but if you 

21 look at the overall year that that person was 

22 working his job, my understanding is it is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 193

1 virtually impossible for his exposure to have 

2 been greater than two percent when you average 

3 it out over the total throughput that he 

4 handled that year. 

5 Now your position with regard to 

6 that matter -- that is that, yes, there was 

7 some campaigns that were greater than two 

8 percent, but they were relatively small 

9 amounts. Any individual that might have 

10 worked on it would have been for a relatively 

11 brief period of time. Is that a fair 

12 characterization of how you came about your 

13 two percent as being bounding? 

14 MR. ROLFES: The majority of the 

15 data that we have indicates that natural 

16 materials were processed in certain years. 

17 Depleted uranium was processed other years. 

18 Slightly enriched materials were processed. 

19 The enrichment isn't typically 

20 given in some of these reports that you see. 

21 It just refers to the material as enriched 

22 uranium, and in other reports, though, it will 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 194

1 actually say the enrichment, whether the air 

2 monitoring data will have enrichment. 

3 There is reports that indicate that 

4 these three individuals worked on a special 

5 project involving alum sodium reactor fuel 

6 elements, dissolving the reactor elements. I 

7 think the enrichments of those elements were 

8 five percent and 6.5 percent. There's 

9 actually corrections to the mobile in vivo 

10 radiation monitoring laboratory data for those 

11 individuals that show that the specific 

12 activity of the material that they were 

13 handling was different than the norm. So they 

14 made adjustments to the maximum permissible 

15 lung burden for the higher enrichments to 

16 ensure that the people didn't have greater 

17 than their control levels. 

18 There is documentation of the 

19 different enrichments. The majority of the 

20 enrichments, as we have been discussing, 

21 enrichments that were handled were typically 

22 very low enrichments, slightly above natural 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 195

1 uranium, and some of the common enrichments 

2 that were used at Fernald, for the Hanford 

3 pile and for the Savannah River site typically 

4 were less than two percent. 

5 Some of the material that they 

6 received from those sites, slightly enriched, 

7 about .8 percent versus the .71 percent U-235 

8 content. 

9 The two most common enrichments for 

10 Hanford, for example, that Fernald received 

11 were .947 percent and 1.25 percent. There was 

12 some 2.1 percent produced for the N reactor as 

13 well. 

14 There is quite a bit of 

15 documentation on enrichments, and so I think 

16 what we've got -- 

17 MR. MORRIS: We do have interviews 

18 of people in charge of the blend-down process 

19 that you may be referring to that, when 

20 batches of -- small batches of products that 

21 would come in, they were immediately blended 

22 into a process stream at a certain point in 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 196

1 order to, as they call, sweeten the 

2 enrichment. 

3 It was always a planned operation. 

4 It was a formulary that was done, and it 

5 would be a dilution of a few kilograms into a 

6 much, much larger volume with a known outcome 

7 that would come out at one of those pre8 specified enrichments there. 

9 MR. MAURO: When you folks 

10 described that to us during the last meeting, 

11 one of the things we were asked to do was to 

12 check -- I think there was a particular report 

13 by Dolan and Hill. I think that's one of the 

14 reports. 

15 Hans had taken a look at it. 

16 Basically, I think where we have come away 

17 from this is that we absolutely understand and 

18 agree that on average assuming two percent for 

19 everybody is certainly an overarching 

20 conservative assumption. But we are asking 

21 ourselves the question: Is it possible -- I 

22 always come back to this circumstance. Is it 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 197

1 possible for some relatively short period of 

2 time -- say one year, two years -- where a 

3 person comes in and he works for a couple -- 

4 let's say we have a person that works there 

5 for 10 years. 

6 In our mind, over that 10-year 

7 period, he is going to average out well below 

8 two percent enrichment. But we have a person 

9 who comes in, and say he just works there for 

10 a year, and he is brought in to handle a 

11 particular campaign, and it happens to be that 

12 person's job to work with the seven percent or 

13 five percent. I don't know if that happened 

14 or not. 

15 So we were looking at the Dolan and 

16 Hill report from that perspective. Is there 

17 any information that will give us some level 

18 of assurance that that is unlikely that 

19 anyone, for a protracted period of time -- say 

20 a year or more -- came in, did that work, and 

21 then basically if we were to do his dose 

22 reconstruction based on his milligrams per 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 198

1 liter, you could underestimate his dose? 

2 It turns out -- and Hans, if you 

3 are on the line -- 

4 MR. BEHLING: Yes, John. Regarding 

5 the Dolan and Hill report, I did look at it, 

6 and there is very little, if any, 

7 quantitative data. In fact, in Section 

8 5.2.1.1 in the TBD where we talk about the 

9 uranium enrichment, Dolan and Hill did cite 

10 it, but it is also acknowledged that -- and I 

11 quote -- as another point of reference, in 

12 1951 to '68 history by Dolan and Hill, 1988, 

13 of the average uranium enrichment collected 

14 discharges, it basically says there is no 

15 data really that is documented. 

16 I went through the report. It is a 

17 100 page report, and there is really no 

18 reference at all. In fact, there is only one 

19 statement here that I can quickly read to you, 

20 and it basically says that, in order to 

21 convert from microcuries to grams of uranium, 

22 the source of all radiation measured by the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 199

1 continued -- this was assumed to be normal 

2 uranium. This assumption is reasonable, since 

3 the plants process large numbers -- large 

4 quantities of depleted uranium and lesser 

5 amounts of low level enriched uranium. 

6 That's the only statement I found 

7 in the report, and it is certainly not a 

8 quantitative statement. 

9 MR. ROLFES: Okay, thanks, Hans. I 

10 wanted to call everyone's attention to the 

11 sample dose reconstruction that we've put to 

12 address this specific issue. 

13 On the Advisory Board's document 

14 review folder, we have placed the FMPC 

15 internal number 14 sample dose reconstruction, 

16 which illustrates the methodology that we 

17 would use to reconstruct someone's internal 

18 exposures to enriched uranium. 

19 The alum sodium reactor fuel 

20 element processing is described in the sample 

21 dose reconstruction briefly. This was placed 

22 onto the O: Drive back in October of 2007. I 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 200

1 think we had discussed this at several working 

2 group meetings in the past. I just want to 

3 make sure that we have considered that 

4 information before we go into any new 

5 information. 

6 MR. MAKHIJANI: Also, John, can I 

7 interrupt. If you go back to my original 

8 write-up of the SEC review under finding 4.1-4 

9 that starts on page 30, I did, in fact, 

10 identify and quote a number of memoranda that 

11 make reference to enrichments that range from 

12 three percent to five and up to 10 percent in 

13 the time period of 1968 to currently. 

14 At least in that memoranda there 

15 was a reference to enriched uranium that 

16 ranged values up to 10 percent. Then I don't 

17 know if any of the other records would support 

18 that, but I guess they were concerned about 

19 criticality, and in anticipation of highly 

20 enriched material, they were obviously 

21 concerned about reconfiguration of various 

22 containers that were used to process this 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 201

1 material. 

2 So 1968 seems to be a target year 

3 for enrichments that well exceed the two 

4 percent that is currently assumed. 

5 MR. ROLFES: Right. There are 

6 exceptions to our defaults, and it appears to 

7 us that they were documented very carefully, 

8 because that material was controlled 

9 differently than the normal products in 

10 Fernald. 

11 Let's see. I wanted to make a 

12 correction to what I said before. The alum 

13 sodium reactor fuel elements had enrichments 

14 of 4.9 percent and 6.5 percent enriched 

15 uranium U-235. 

16 Like I said, we have described how 

17 this is an exception to the normal work that 

18 was done at Fernald, and used this 

19 individual's whole body counting data and the 

20 documentation of the uniqueness of his 

21 exposures in our assessment. 

22 MR. MAURO: Mark, we have no doubt 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 202

1 that, if you know the individuals that are 

2 dealing with the enrichment and the level of 

3 possible enrichment, you can reconstruct a 

4 dose. 

5 I guess our question goes toward 

6 that -- you know, you wrote that, when you 

7 come across a dose reconstruction, is enough 

8 information available to you that you know the 

9 people that you should be treating as a five 

10 percent enriched or a seven percent enriched. 

11 The ones at two percent are going to be down 

12 there. 

13 So yes, we would certainly agree 

14 that if you know who the people are and what 

15 they were handling, such as you make reference 

16 of this alum sodium reactor and other aluminum 

17 form of reactor -- I don't know if that is the 

18 same material, but in any event, sure, you 

19 could compare your milligrams per liter. 

20 Our concern is are there any 

21 surprises? Are there people that might have 

22 gotten it, and are the records that you are 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 203

1 dealing with such that you have a level of 

2 confidence that you could parse that, make 

3 that distinction? 

4 MR. ROLFES: Right. And I think we 

5 had addressed this previously as well. I 

6 don't have a date in front of me, but I do 

7 remember specifically going through some of 

8 the mobile in vivo radiation monitoring 

9 laboratory results that we have and pulling 

10 out the ones that had notations of enriched 

11 uranium or special projects, things like that. 

12 We also did the same thing for 

13 thorium workers. I believe those two finals 

14 were put onto the Advisory Board's document 

15 review folder. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: The question is: 

17 Is that inclusive? Is that some people that 

18 were monitored or is that every person? 

19 MR. ROLFES: It would certainly be 

20 the ones that were highest internally exposed. 

21 Based on the information that we have, the 

22 mobile in vivo radiation monitoring laboratory 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 204

1 results, the people that were most highly 

2 exposed had the most routine schedule for 

3 counting. 

4 What we found is that some of the 

5 people that had the higher exposures were 

6 counted sometimes more often than twice a 

7 year. 

8 MR. MAURO: That's a chest count. 

9 MR. ROLFES: Chest counting, right. 

10 MR. MAURO: Now that started in 

11 '68. 

12 MR. ROLFES: That's correct. 

13 MR. MAURO: Now I guess my -- 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Just to follow up 

15 on that before you go, even if that is the 

16 case, then how do you -- there could be some 

17 people in those areas that weren't the highest 

18 exposures, but still got exposed to that 

19 enriched -- that different enrichment level. 

20 Right? So how do you identify those people, 

21 or do you just figure two percent will cover 

22 it, is what I'm getting? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 205

1 MR. ROLFES: Well, for example, 

2 like Plant 9 was the enriched uranium handling 

3 plant after it produced thorium. It was 

4 basically handling some of the higher 

5 enrichment materials, and by higher enrichment 

6 I am talking just slightly enriched, even 

7 generally above .71 percent. 

8 Let's see. How would we handle? 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: So does everybody 

10 in Plant 9 get a higher assumption on this? 

11 MR. ROLFES: Everyone across the 

12 site is being given the higher default. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Given the two 

14 percent? 

15 MR. ROLFES: Right. Right. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: But nobody is 

17 getting higher than two percent? 

18 MR. ROLFES: Except when it is 

19 documented in a report like we have for the 

20 alum reactor or when there is a note on the 

21 individual's mobile in vivo data or there is a 

22 different ratio of U-235 to U-238 for total 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 206

1 uranium in the individual's lung count 

2 results. So that piece of evidence would 

3 allow us to -- 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: That would trigger 

5 something else. Right. 

6 MR. ROLFES: Right. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: And the two 

8 percent -- I think you answered this already, 

9 but your example with the two percent, that is 

10 your default across the site? 

11 MR. ROLFES: That's correct. I 

12 have to take a look at the specific year. I 

13 believe it is after 1965. 

14 MR. MAURO: There was a break 

15 point, I forget the date, but there was a 

16 break point, and the rationale for the break 

17 point is provided. My question -- I guess I 

18 was less concerned with chest count, more when 

19 you start with milligrams per liter. 

20 MR. MORRIS: But there is a lot of 

21 information in the chest count record, because 

22 they did make specific notes on files when 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 207

1 there was reason to believe that the work 

2 assignment had them in a different location. 

3 They are so consistently done that 

4 they are notable. 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: It is more than a 

6 question of coverage. A lot of times those 

7 lung count programs, they do sporadically 

8 choose some workers. 

9 MR. MORRIS: It wasn't sporadic. 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Again, it is 

11 identifying the people. 

12 MR. MORRIS: We have a health and 

13 safety manager's memo that came out probably 

14 beginning in 1968, and then again a few years 

15 later. It actually specified the exact 

16 criteria for why somebody would be pulled into 

17 the chest counter. 

18 For example, they pulled in all the 

19 thorium workers initially, but then there was 

20 also a logic chart about who would be counted 

21 and why and how often. 

22 MR. MAURO: For pre-'68, though, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 208

1 would I be correct in assuming that it is 

2 process knowledge that would allow you to 

3 parse who to go to treat special? 

4 MR. MORRIS: I think that is fair. 

5 MR. MAURO: And the process 

6 knowledge is available to you? 

7 MR. MORRIS: We have quite a bit of 

8 interview information that tells us when and 

9 where that a sweetening was done. 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: But my concern -- 

11 and maybe I am just restating the same thing I 

12 said, but my concern is not as much the 

13 process knowledge but connecting people with 

14 the process knowledge. It seems clear to me 

15 in the database and in some of the interview 

16 records and stuff like that that we have, that 

17 is not always intuitively obvious, how you do 

18 that. 

19 You don't have building 

20 information. A lot of times you are dealing 

21 with survivors. So you don't know, that is my 

22 question, is could someone be in those special 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 209

1 campaigns and not have been sampled at all, 

2 and you may never -- you know. 

3 MR. MORRIS: Special campaigns, at 

4 least my perception of them from the 

5 interviews and the reading I have done, is 

6 that they were really brief. Now they would 

7 have been, you know, go get this three8 kilogram batch of five percent uranium and mix 

9 it into this vat today. That would be like a 

10 two-minute job to do the injection of the new 

11 material into the big batch. 

12 It wasn't like weeks and weeks of 

13 working with that material. 

14 MR. MAURO: It sounds to me like 

15 it's not so much process knowledge. It is 

16 knowledge that the campaigns were so short 

17 lived that, when you average that -- 

18 MR. MORRIS: Mark and I have not 

19 talked this out. 

20 MR. MAURO: I know, and that 

21 certainly sounds like a reasonable answer, as 

22 long as there is reason to believe that you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 210

1 didn't have processes that went on for a year. 

2 MR. MORRIS: Right. 

3 MR. MAURO: And if you have records 

4 where you could say, yes, it does not look 

5 like we have any evidence that there was five 

6 percent, seven percent, 19.9 percent process 

7 for an extended period of time -- and if turns 

8 out when it -- 

9 MR. MORRIS: I didn't see anything 

10 that would suggest that, John. 

11 MR. MAURO: Okay. 

12 CHAIR CLAWSON: So where are we at 

13 on this issue then? 

14 MR. MAURO: Well, we are at the 

15 last item under what I call the uranium 

16 internal. Give me one second, please. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, were you 

18 going to close this item? 

19 MR. MAURO: Right. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, I would 

21 say, short of information showing that there 

22 was more extensive use of higher enrichments, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 211

1 I am comfortable with it. So yes. 

2 MR. ROLFES: I found a reference 

3 here that I can mention, from 1975, February 

4 10th, on permissible lung burdens. There is 

5 attached to this individual's mobile in vivo 

6 results, there is some indication that he was 

7 working with higher enrichments. It gives 

8 the necessary adjustments for specific 

9 activity and its effect on the maximum 

10 permissible lung burden. 

11 I know that there is a document -- 

12 I don't know if it is this one -- that has 

13 descriptive information about the process that 

14 was going on, what plant that was done, and in 

15 this specific case it lists four specific 

16 individuals that were working on this 

17 campaign. 

18 Let's see if there is any 

19 additional information. 

20 MR. MAURO: Duration. 

21 MR. ROLFES: That is what I am 

22 looking for. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 212

1 MR. MAURO: You've got like a 

2 weight of evidence argument, I would say. Not 

3 only do we believe they were short, we 

4 actually have a case where we have a person 

5 where we know and we can see how long he 

6 worked at that level, and what his annual 

7 enrichment exposure might have been. 

8 We know that for some period of 

9 time, it might have been above two, but it 

10 would almost be like a case study where, when 

11 you annualize it over the full year he might 

12 have worked, it effectively comes down to an 

13 average of less than two, and that would be 

14 sort of like a case study that demonstrates 

15 your argument. 

16 MR. ROLFES: When you look at the 

17 actual enrichment information presented in the 

18 mobile in vivo results, this individual had 

19 participated in some of the campaigns where 

20 there was 6.5 percent enriched uranium that 

21 was handled. I could take a look at the 

22 average enrichment that he was exposed to in 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 213

1 his in vivo data. It shows roughly .5 percent 

2 enrichment for 1970, .64 for 1971, .79 for -- 

3 MR. MAURO: That shows an example 

4 of demonstrating your case that you just made. 

5 MR. ROLFES: So everything -- and 

6 those are all -- typically, the first two 

7 measurements were less than an actual. So 

8 roughly depleted uranium that the individual 

9 was exposed to, and then slightly enriched 

10 material in 1972, which was .79 percent 

11 average. Subsequent to that, it was 1.5 

12 percent enrichment, and in 1974 was 1.3 

13 percent. 

14 MR. MAURO: Also, even this fellow 

15 wasn't exposed at anytime to something above 

16 two percent. 

17 MR. ROLFES: It is possible that he 

18 was exposed to the 6.5 percent enrichment. 

19 However, he wasn't solely exposed to that. 

20 MR. MAURO: I'm sorry. You do 

21 information it was at some point prior to the 

22 process. Okay, good. I would say, that is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 214

1 sort of why it reinforces the position you are 

2 taking. 

3 CHAIR CLAWSON: I guess my question 

4 is: So on this one, what do we want to do? 

5 Where do we want to proceed? Are we satisfied 

6 with that? 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: That is my -- I'll 

8 restate what I said, is that short of -- you 

9 know, with the assumption that these were 

10 short campaigns, I think that I'm okay with 

11 this two percent exception, and if we don't 

12 find any other evidence, then I'm okay with 

13 that. Paul? 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: That would make 

15 sense to me. Basically, every case you have 

16 seen, they have simply blended the higher 

17 enrichment stuff into the system. Is that 

18 right? 

19 MR. MORRIS: That was the ordinary 

20 process. 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: That was the 

22 practice, you're saying. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 215

1 MR. MORRIS: Yes. They had 

2 depleted uranium. They would sweeten it up to 

3 whatever the enrichment of slightly enriched 

4 was, if they needed it. 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Your sense is that 

6 at least some of the people that were involved 

7 in the blending operation were sampled, 

8 because you've got data to that effect. 

9 MR. MAURO: Yes. 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: And the blending 

11 wouldn't take that long. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: A short time, and 

13 Mark just gave us an example. 

14 MR. MORRIS: The blended -- the 

15 higher enriched material was very valuable. 

16 So it was Fort Knox kind of stuff, and they 

17 would bring it in and add it to the large 

18 volume. 

19 MR. RICH: This is Bryce Rich. One 

20 further note to what Bob indicated is that the 

21 use of what I will call the higher enriched 

22 stuff was very carefully controlled from a DOE 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 216

1 accountability standpoint. Some of the 

2 material -- they were not allowed to use it 

3 for blending and, matter of fact, sent it off 

4 site without using it in the process. 

5 MR. ROLFES: As I recall with some 

6 of the individuals, if they were to use a 

7 higher enrichment than a given amount -- and I 

8 don't recall the enrichment -- they had to get 

9 a specific approval from DOE headquarters in 

10 order to do that, because it would basically 

11 be throwing money away. 

12 So if there was an exception, it 

13 was very infrequent. The typical enrichment 

14 that they would use would be close to the 

15 other material. They wouldn't try to blend 90 

16 percent enriched uranium with depleted uranium 

17 to try to get five percent, you know. 

18 MR. RICH: Particularly if they 

19 didn't have 90 percent on site. 

20 MR. ROLFES: Exactly. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: And I think the 

22 other -- I think also on the other side of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 217

1 this is the two percent, given what I have 

2 read, what we know about the site. Well, you 

3 guys know more than I, but it looks like a lot 

4 of it was depleted. Overall, the average was 

5 probably much lower than two percent. 

6 So I'm fairly comfortable. Given 

7 that the campaigns were short with the higher 

8 stuff, this is more than a reasonable 

9 approach, to me. 

10 CHAIR CLAWSON: Is that -- I would 

11 say it's closed unless something else raises 

12 its head there. So is everybody in agreement? 

13 MR. MAURO: We'll move on -- like a 

14 field goal, a red flag after a play in 

15 football. I have one more -- as I mentioned 

16 very early on, we have five major areas of 

17 concern. We are about to deal with the last 

18 item in the first area, and that has to do 

19 with what is called a finding on the 4.1-2, 

20 and I will read the issue, and you will know 

21 what I am talking about. 

22 The questionable integrity of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 218

1 fluorometric urinalysis -- the concern is that 

2 there are numerous statements in memos and 

3 from all the records that the bioassay data 

4 cannot be reconstructed -- cannot be used to 

5 reconstruct doses. This is a data quality 

6 problem. 

7 Earlier during the previous -- much 

8 earlier meeting, a year ago, the October 2007 

9 meeting, Mark had described in considerable 

10 detail a special study that was performed and 

11 put up on the Web related to data validation 

12 of the data. I guess it is to confirm the 

13 reliability of the data. 

14 We did not discuss this issue. We 

15 never got to this issue, and -- let me see if 

16 I got this right. Oh, I'm sorry. I take it 

17 back. Give me a second, one second. 

18 Oh, okay. In your review, you made 

19 reference to a military spec for doing these 

20 kinds of statistical -- you know what I am 

21 referring to now? 

22 MR. ROLFES; I think so. That was 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 219

1 for the HIS-20 comparison. 

2 MR. MAURO: Yes. That's what this 

3 goes to, I believe. That's how I happened to 

4 mention it. 

5 MR. NETON; I don't think so. My 

6 recollection was that the argument was that 

7 the data couldn't be -- there were memos 

8 saying you couldn't use the data for internal, 

9 because the old ICPR-2 model weren't valid. 

10 MR. MAURO: So there's two problems. 

11 Yes. You are absolutely right. Now as I'm 

12 reading my notes here, there was two aspects 

13 to it. 

14 One was what you just mentioned, 

15 and I think the general agreement at the time 

16 was -- well, no, no. The point was -- in our 

17 critique Hans made mention of numerous places 

18 in some old records and says you can't use 

19 this data for dose reconstruction. But upon 

20 our discussion, that statement was made, 

21 because at the time we did not have -- 

22 MR. NETON: The knowledge of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 220

1 histodosimetry was not as fast. 

2 MR. MAURO: Right. Now that you do 

3 have the biokinetic models -- so, yes, I think 

4 we put that to bed. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: And it wasn't the 

6 fact that it was fluorophotometric data. 

7 MR. MAURO: There was no way -- at 

8 that time there was no reliable way to connect 

9 the urine analysis data to -- with inhalation 

10 and the subsequent dose. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: I thought we had 

12 closed that. 

13 MR. MAURO: Right. I'll just jump 

14 to the other item, which was not closed, and 

15 we were given some marching orders, and that 

16 has to do with -- we were asked -- in that 

17 quality assurance investigation that you folks 

18 performed, I guess, and looking at how 

19 faithful was the HIS-20 database, you sampled 

20 from 1950s, '60s, '70s and '80s. 

21 I guess you sampled from the 

22 original data, hard copy data, and compared 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 221

1 those hard copies against the data that was 

2 loaded into the HIS-20 database, and you 

3 summarized in some great detail in the 

4 transcript your results, identifying where 

5 there were matches, where there were some 

6 problems, and you had a lot of statistics 

7 describing the quality of the -- or the degree 

8 to which the material was transcribed. 

9 SC&A was given a marching order in 

10 light of that, and I will read it: It says, 

11 "A discussion of the types of disparities that 

12 were observed in your work indicated that some 

13 were more significant than others. For 

14 example, in some cases it was simply the 

15 misspelling of a person's name would be 

16 considered to be an error, and it was scored 

17 as such. In other cases, it might have been a 

18 more severe, serious discrepancy." 

19 The work group did ask us -- you 

20 may take a look; I have it here -- an action 

21 item was suggested to have SC&A look into this 

22 matter and then hold a separate telephone 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 222

1 conference call related to the nature of the 

2 places where there were some disparities. 

3 That was the marching orders that we were 

4 given. 

5 I do not believe we ever held that 

6 conference call. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can I ask a 

8 question about -- I was looking through that 

9 HIS-20 data comparison, and the hard copy that 

10 you judged HIS-20 against were these 

11 analytical datasheets. 

12 My question was: Obviously not or 

13 you would have used them, but I guess I will 

14 ask it anyway. Were there any laboratory 

15 logbooks available? 

16 MR. ROLFES: I think you had asked 

17 that last time. 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think I probably 

19 did, yes. 

20 MR. ROLFES: And we did look, and I 

21 don't recall seeing any. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: So that is the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 223

1 most primary source you could find. 

2 MR. ROLFES: Right. 

3 MS. BALDRIDGE: I have a question. 

4 Were those entries made by name, by number? 

5 MR. ROLFES: What entries? I'm 

6 sorry. 

7 MS. BALDRIDGE: Into the database 

8 from the old records, because I was going 

9 through my father's papers from National Lab. 

10 He had probably three different ID numbers 

11 assigned. 

12 MR. ROLFES: The HIS-20 data -- 

13 MS. BALDRIDGE: So, you know, I'm 

14 sure two of them were errors, but still if 

15 some of his records were listed under the 

16 wrong number -- 

17 MR. ROLFES: The HIS-20 database 

18 has Social Security number. I can open it up 

19 and explain what we have within the database 

20 and then see if I can get a copy of the hard 

21 copy data that we used to compare to HIS-20. 

22 I don't know if Gene Potter is on 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 224

1 the line either. He would probably be able to 

2 answer right away. Do we have Gene Potter on 

3 the line? Doesn't sound like it. 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think we should 

5 plan this technical follow-up call anyway. 

6 MR. MAURO: So I will take that as 

7 an action item. Those calls we didn't do last 

8 time, we will do it now. 

9 CHAIR CLAWSON: Okay. Also to be 

10 able to address your concern of how they were 

11 entered in from the hard copy, be it name or 

12 number. 

13 MR. ROLFES: What we had, I 

14 believe, were the -- in the early days, this 

15 is the one that I pulled up. The New York 

16 Operations Office, Health and Safety Division, 

17 had done some of the initial bioassays for the 

18 Fernald workers. They would collect urine 

19 samples and analyze them at the Health and 

20 Safety Lab. 

21 What we did is compared scanned 

22 images of those -- I'm trying to recall. I 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 225

1 think they were like an industrial hygiene 

2 sheet, like a data sheet with individuals' 

3 names, and I forget all the other parameters 

4 that were on there. But it typically would 

5 get a name and the bioassay results, in 

6 addition to the date of the analysis and the 

7 data collection. 

8 I would have to take a look back to 

9 see what specifically is in there. Let's see. 

10 The HIS-20 comparison has been out on the O: 

11 Drive since March 10th of 2008 as well. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: What specifically 

13 is going to be the nature of the technical 

14 call? 

15 MR. MAURO: Well, right now my 

16 understanding is that there were certain 

17 disparities in the numbers, where there were 

18 errors -- 

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: The database versus 

20 the original sheets? 

21 MR. MAURO: Yes, the original 

22 sheet. It sounds like there's two aspects to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 226

1 it. We have the original sheets that were 

2 just handwritten hard copy, and -- 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Not handwritten. 

4 Typewritten. 

5 MR. MAURO: Typewritten? I haven't 

6 seen them, but they are hard copy, and they 

7 were transferred into the HIS-20 database. 

8 Now originally there was a concern of how 

9 faithful was that transcription, and there was 

10 a report given on that. 

11 There were a number of findings, 

12 and they were complex. It wasn't that it was 

13 a simple -- in the minutes, if you read the 

14 minutes of the last meeting, how they 

15 characterized the different kinds of findings 

16 -- there were all different types, and some 

17 were more important than others. 

18 I guess at the time the work group 

19 felt that we would like to hear a little bit 

20 more about the nature of the disparities, the 

21 extent of those disparities, and for SC&A to 

22 look at those disparities and say, okay, we 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 227

1 understand how the work was done -- in other 

2 words, how the sampling was done. They 

3 sampled, basically, and based on that sampling 

4 scheme, which followed a certain mill spec for 

5 doing these kinds of samples, using that mill 

6 spec they were able to make certain judgments 

7 about what number of errors there were. What 

8 is the percent of errors. 

9 In other words, out of the 

10 thousands and thousands of numbers that were 

11 transcribed, what percent contained a type one 

12 error, type two error, type three error, type 

13 four error, and of those, which ones were the 

14 more serious. 

15 In other words, have SC&A look at 

16 that a bit. 

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is something 

18 NIOSH has already done. 

19 MR. ROLFES: We have already done 

20 that. I can get the executive summary, if you 

21 like. 

22 CHAIR CLAWSON: You've already 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 228

1 evaluated the database in the manner 

2 described. So you are just saying let's take 

3 a look at what they did and make sure we are 

4 comfortable with their analysis. Is that what 

5 we are talking about? Sounds like it's 

6 already been done. 

7 MR. MORRIS: Brad, if I might offer 

8 a suggestion, I would suggest that the charter 

9 you give to SC&A would be look at the errors 

10 that were identified and see if they might 

11 have an impact on a co-worker study, because 

12 that really is the big picture for why you are 

13 doing it. 

14 CHAIR CLAWSON: Well, if you 

15 remember right, when we got into this last 

16 time, the mention came up there were so many 

17 discrepancies. But if I remembered right, it 

18 wasn't broke down, and it's like what Mark -- 

19 you know, some of them were just a misspelled 

20 word or so forth like that, and many of them 

21 were into this. 

22 This is why we tasked SC&A to look 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 229

1 into that. 

2 MR. MORRIS: Because it would be 

3 easy to come to a conclusion that there was a 

4 failure of the dataset for some reason that 

5 didn't impact anything you cared about. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Sure. 

7 MR. MORRIS: But, you know, if you 

8 are really focused on what do you want the 

9 dataset to do for you, accurately reflect 

10 population doses or accurately reflect the 

11 individual doses or whatever the goal is, 

12 don't get sidetracked by looking for some 

13 trivial error that really is not important. 

14 MR. MAURO: It goes to the DQO 

15 argument, which I completely agree with. But 

16 when you are doing your work, figure out what 

17 it is you are doing and why you are doing it. 

18 MR. MORRIS: Because we scored it 

19 fairly hard. I mean, if there was a mistake, 

20 it was a mistake. But is it an important 

21 mistake is the next question. 

22 MR. ROLFES: I can present the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 230

1 executive summary. It should only be a 

2 minute. 

3 Since data extracted from the HIS4 20 database was used in the uranium bioassay 

5 co-worker study for the feed materials 

6 production at Fernald, verification of the 

7 completeness and accuracy of the data in HIS8 20 was desired. 

9 An accepted sampling plan was 

10 developed using a statistical method known as 

11 sampling by attributes. Hard copy records 

12 were acquired independently during data 

13 capture trips by members of OCUS and the ORAU 

14 team. They consist mainly of analytical 

15 datasheets, urine request cards and annual 

16 urinalysis summary reports. 

17 For this study, 33 electronic files 

18 scanned from hard copy bioassay results were 

19 examined. There were eight files which were 

20 primarily subcontractor or gross alpha and 

21 beta results. These files were eliminated, 

22 since they would not affect the co-worker 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 231

1 study for feed materials production center 

2 employees. 

3 Twenty of the remaining 25 files 

4 met the criteria selected. Five files did not 

5 meet the criteria, but were unlikely to result 

6 in anything that became changes to the co7 worker study, if the data missing from HIS-20 

8 were to be included. 

9 Overall, approximately 90 percent 

10 of the data was matched, with only a few files 

11 accounting for the majority of the results 

12 that were not located in HIS-20. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think that is 

14 very helpful, and from my perspective it would 

15 be fine if you had your statisticians look at 

16 that design and see how we agree with that 

17 design, and then look at the conclusions and 

18 see if you agree with those or if, for some 

19 reason, you think that design is completely -- 

20 I mean, I can sit here and hear it, and it 

21 sounds good, but I don't now if you had enough 

22 samples or not. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 232

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: I have a question 

2 about the part you left out, that it wouldn't 

3 affect the -- you have already excluded some 

4 data, because you said it wouldn't affect the 

5 co-worker model, but we are not only concerned 

6 about the co-worker model. We are looking for 

7 systemic problems within the data, I think, 

8 aren't we? 

9 You excluded -- I missed it -- I'm 

10 sorry -- when Mark was reading this -- 

11 excluded gross alpha/beta. Reread that. 

12 MR. ROLFES: I can reread that, but 

13 this was done for the co-worker study to 

14 determine whether the uranium bioassay data 

15 was sufficient to generate a co-worker model. 

16 Yes, these files were eliminated -- 

17 let me get back to that. For this study, 33 

18 electronic files scanned from hard copy 

19 bioassay results were examined. There were 

20 eight files which were primarily subcontractor 

21 or gross alpha/beta results. These files were 

22 eliminated, since they would not affect the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 233

1 co-worker study of Fernald employees. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: And you were doing 

3 that, because that was your purpose. I got 

4 it, yes. 

5 MR. MORRIS: Yes. We wouldn't want 

6 alpha/beta -- gross alpha/beta, because we 

7 were looking at a different set of -- we don't 

8 care. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: But our objective 

10 is maybe a little farther than that. 

11 MR. MORRIS: Could be. I'm not 

12 suggesting that -- you just need to figure our 

13 why you want to do this, because you will find 

14 things like that in here that we scored as 

15 failures that may not be a failure from your 

16 perspective. 

17 MR. ROLFES: I can break down those 

18 33 finals. I've got some of the data here as 

19 well. It's a 15 page White Paper, if you are 

20 interested in looking at it in more detail. 

21 But I believe we were asked to select various 

22 decades for the study. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 234

1 So what we did -- let's see. For 

2 the 1950s we selected 16 files. For the 

3 1960s, we selected seven files. For the 

4 1970s, we selected five, and for the 1980s we 

5 selected five. So that gave us a total of 33 

6 files which were evaluated. 

7 MR. MAURO: Are these people? 

8 MR. ROLFES: No, these are files, 

9 like they could have 200 pages of different 

10 individuals listed and multiple urine samples 

11 in there. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: And was this 

13 selected -- I mean, did you weight that for a 

14 reason or was it just that there are more 

15 reports available? 

16 MR. ROLFES: I think a couple of 

17 years back there was some concern that some of 

18 the individuals in the earlier days might not 

19 have been monitored as frequently or that the 

20 correct people might not have been monitored. 

21 MR. MORRIS: Also, the shift from 

22 the New York Operations Office monitoring to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 235

1 the on-site monitoring. So those were the key 

2 areas that we started to focus. 

3 MR. ROLFES: And also, the Fifties, 

4 we would be relying primarily on uranium 

5 urinalyses to complete those reconstructions. 

6 We have additional information. We would 

7 have air sampling data, if necessary, back 

8 then as well, but in the Sixties, that is when 

9 the mobile in vivo unit came to the site. So 

10 we have another piece, essentially a 

11 confirmatory piece of data to use in addition 

12 to the urinalysis results. 

13 So we've got two different data 

14 sources that we can use to do a dose 

15 reconstruction. So I think that was -- there 

16 was a gradual change to, you know, do fewer 

17 sampling or fewer files to sample in the more 

18 recent time period. 

19 MR. MAURO: Should I move on? 

20 CHAIR CLAWSON: If you would. I 

21 was just going through some of the data here 

22 and stuff like that, looking at some of what 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 236

1 they have. But go ahead and go on. 

2 MR. MAURO; Well, we have basically 

3 concluded the first major set of findings 

4 related to basically uranium bioassay samples. 

5 Now the second finding deals with 

6 the K-65 silos and exposure to radon and 

7 exposure to, I believe, some -- there was some 

8 discussion of radium and radon emanation. 

9 We never got to that subject in the 

10 last meeting on March 26th. We skipped over 

11 it. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: What are you on? 

13 MR. MAURO: Oh, I am on Number two. 

14 I am on my big matrix. 

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's 4.2? 

16 MR. MAURO: I'm on 4.2. It's on 

17 page 12. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: K-65 wastes and 

19 raffinates. 

20 MR. MAURO: Right. Now previously 

21 this just had a single page on 4.2-1 and -2. 

22 There are a couple of issues, and we never got 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 237

1 in the last meeting to this, because we went 

2 on to 4-3 which deals with thorium, I believe. 

3 So we never really got to 4-2 in the last 

4 meeting because of the overriding concern 

5 regarding reconstruction of doses to workers 

6 exposed to thorium-232, especially during the 

7 years pre-1968 when you were basing -- 

8 At that time, if you recall, at the 

9 last meeting, it was an important meeting, 

10 because we spent most of our time discussing 

11 the daily weighted exposure data. 

12 So I guess I have a question for 

13 the work group at this time. One of the 

14 action items that came out of the last meeting 

15 which was very important was that NIOSH would 

16 look at the download and report on the daily 

17 weighted exposure data for 1955 and 1966 for 

18 all buildings as being a way to demonstrate to 

19 the work group that we have a very complete 

20 daily weighted exposure dataset. 

21 If you recall, at the time of the 

22 meeting there was a nice matrix table that was 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 238

1 handed out that had by year, by building, and 

2 there were little dots in each box, and each 

3 dot represented a report, and you have a total 

4 of 160 such reports. 

5 It was all agreed that, if you 

6 really have lots of daily weighted exposure 

7 data for everyone of those dots, in theory you 

8 could build a co-worker model for everyone of 

9 those boxes or some -- when you didn't maybe 

10 aggregate, but the point being that you had 

11 such an abundance of daily weighted exposure 

12 that in theory you could build one or more 

13 sets of curves representing different time 

14 periods, different worker type, different 

15 buildings; and once you have that distribution 

16 of daily weighted exposure, you then have the 

17 luxury to select the upper -- for any given 

18 worker, you have the luxury of selecting the 

19 upper 95th percentile, the median, maybe a 

20 lower end value. 

21 In other words, from an SEC 

22 perspective, if you have that data the way it 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 239

1 was represented at the last meeting, you were 

2 in a very strong position to say you can 

3 reconstruct doses with sufficient accuracy. 

4 MR. MORRIS: The normal reason to 

5 do that would be for thorium, though. 

6 MR. MAURO: For thorium-232 only. 

7 See, the big problem previously was you were 

8 going to go to 1050 MAC -- 

9 MR. MORRIS: That's right. 

10 MR. MAURO: -- MAC continuous 

11 exposure. For 2,000 hours per year, people 

12 were always exposed at 1050 MAC to thorium13 232. We had a lot of criticisms of that, and 

14 that goes way back. Then -- 

15 MR. RICH: John, I am a little 

16 confused. I thought you were discussing 

17 radon. 

18 MR. MAURO: No, no, no. I'm sorry. 

19 Let me clarify. 

20 What I'm saying is we have -- right 

21 now we have one set of issues dealing with the 

22 K-65 silos and radon, and there's a bunch of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 240

1 issues there. Then we have -- I'm going to 

2 call that issue number two and all its sub3 issues. 

4 Then we have issue number three and 

5 its all sub-issues, which deals with thorium6 232 exposure. All I was trying to explain, 

7 and we sort of got down the road a little far, 

8 was that at the last meeting we elected to 

9 jump over the K-65 silo set of issues and go 

10 to issue number three, 4.3, which deals with 

11 thorium-232 and the daily weighted exposure. 

12 At that time, an action item at 

13 that time was given to NIOSH to look into that 

14 data. I just wanted to point this out to the 

15 work group, that we have a choice now. We can 

16 continue and go in sequence and go on to issue 

17 number two, which has to do with the K-65 

18 silos and the radon issues and other matters, 

19 or we can jump over that and go to the 

20 thorium-232 issue, given that it is already 

21 2:30. 

22 So I guess we will do whatever you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 241

1 folks would like to do. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess it depends 

3 on how much material we have to discuss. I'm 

4 not sure we have -- do we have any new 

5 information on either one of these topics? I 

6 think we are waiting on the thorium. 

7 MR. MAURO: Will you mind if I 

8 ask, did you folks have a chance to look at 

9 the 1955 and '66 dataset? 

10 MR. ROLFES: No. That was the only 

11 thing that I was aware of that we owed the 

12 working group on Fernald. That was the only 

13 open issue that NIOSH needed to produce 

14 something for the Advisory Board. We still 

15 owe that. 

16 MR. MAURO: Okay, then you know 

17 what? Then there is no reason to go there. 

18 MR. ROLFES: Right. 

19 MR. MAURO: Let's go hit number 

20 two. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: I agree. 

22 CHAIR CLAWSON: But we've got it 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 242

1 documented that that is still -- right? 

2 MR. ROLFES; Yes. Yes. I believe 

3 we've got the White Paper written that will 

4 allow us to assign the intakes from the daily 

5 weighted exposure results. We had some 

6 internal comments which we've resolved. They 

7 are in the process of resolving, and then this 

8 second step that we would need to take is to 

9 download that data or populate that data into 

10 our exposure model to determine what the 

11 intakes would be for those plants for those 

12 years of 1955 and 1966. 

13 MR. ELLIOTT: Mark, the product 

14 that we owe is a White Paper? 

15 MR. ROLFES: Correct. 

16 MR. ELLIOTT: And that is in 

17 review, you think? 

18 MR. ROLFES: That's correct. 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: So it's imminent, I 

20 would say. 

21 MR. ROLFES: It is just really 

22 final comments. We have some comments on the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 243

1 statistics that were used, and I think we have 

2 pretty much resolved the path forward, and it 

3 is just a matter of documenting them in the 

4 final product. 

5 MR. NETON: That would have been a 

6 while ago. 

7 MR. ROLFES: Yes. 

8 MR. NETON: I remember reading it. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: There is a sub10 folder on the O: Drive that says exposure 

11 studies. Is that where that is going to end 

12 up? 

13 MR. ROLFES; Yes. 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Because it's blank 

15 right now. Okay. 

16 MR. ROLFES: Yes, with an empty 

17 folder. 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's where it 

19 will be. All right. We'll keep an eye out. 

20 MR. ROLFES: It's a placeholder. 

21 MR. KATZ: You will send out a 

22 notice. Right? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 244

1 MR. ROLFES; I sure will. 

2 MR. MAURO: We are on 4.2-1. This 

3 has to do -- fundamentally, it has to do with 

4 the K-65 silos, raffinates and radon 

5 exposures, and there are three sub-issues, and 

6 I guess we could take them one at a time, but 

7 in concept. I always like to look at these 

8 things almost like a picture. 

9 You know, what you have is workers 

10 that either loaded the silos and, therefore, 

11 were exposed to these raffinates, which had 

12 high levels of radium and thorium in it, and 

13 the question becomes how are you going to 

14 reconstruct the dose, internal doses, to those 

15 workers? That's an important category of 

16 concern. 

17 There is also the issue, and very 

18 important issue, that Hans had brought up in 

19 one of his analyses, is the radon emanation 

20 rate from the K-65 silos. The issue has to do 

21 with a specific model that was done by John 

22 Till's organization, I believe, where the way 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 245

1 in which the exhalation rate of radon from the 

2 silos was modeled. It was by a diffusion 

3 model which took into consideration the 

4 breathing rate, so to speak. 

5 As the temperature and pressure 

6 changes outdoors, you get a delta P across the 

7 cap, and you get exhalation, and you came up 

8 with a source term for radon. I remember the 

9 number will being about 6,000 curies per year 

10 per silo, or maybe on that order. 

11 When we reviewed that -- let's go 

12 down that road. Let's talk radon. There are 

13 other issues, but we might as well go with 

14 that one first. That's the one that is 

15 freshest in my mind. 

16 When we reviewed that, we first 

17 said let's see if we can get the same number 

18 you folks got, the 6,000 curies per year 

19 number by running our own diffusion models and 

20 transport, using the diffusion coefficients 

21 and looking at the literature and all that, 

22 basically checking the work done by -- I think 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 246

1 it was Till and Meyer -- or, no, John Till and 

2 Rack who did it, I guess, as part of the dose 

3 reconstruction for Fernald, off-site dose 

4 reconstruction for Fernald. 

5 So we had our folks that do that 

6 kind of analysis look at that, and the bottom 

7 line is you have about the same number. The 

8 6,000 looks good. 

9 At the same time, Hans was looking 

10 at it from a completely different perspective. 

11 We like to try to come at problems from other 

12 directions, and he said, well, let's look at 

13 the inventory of radium-226 and its progeny 

14 based on the sampling that was done inside 

15 those silos, pulled samples, lots of samples. 

16 It turns out there was a deficit of 

17 lead-210 and polonium-210. In other words, 

18 the progeny of radon were lower than what we 

19 expected it to be. In other words, if there 

20 was full equilibrium between the radium-226 

21 and all its progeny, you would expect the 

22 inventory or the concentrations in the silos 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 247

1 to be more or less the same. By and large, 

2 the radon, most of it, stayed -- 

3 MR. NETON: The radon didn't go 

4 anywhere. 

5 MR. MAURO: Didn't go anywhere. 

6 You would get equilibrium. 

7 MR. NETON: That can happen. 

8 MR. MAURO: And we know that can 

9 happen. So Hans went through a set of 

10 calculations. Hans, I'm stealing your 

11 thunder, because it's a good story. 

12 MR. NETON: And you can do it. 

13 MR. MAURO: Bottom line is Hans 

14 came up with -- based on the deficit, came up 

15 with a number 10 times higher, 60,000 curies 

16 per year being the exhalation rate. 

17 MR. NETON: Well, it's nice to say 

18 that. We would like to see the analysis 

19 MR. MAURO: Oh, no, no. Hans, was 

20 that written up? Are you on line? 

21 MR. BEHLING: No, it is just 

22 basically a back-of-the-envelope calculation, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 248

1 but it really links the data in Table 5-16, 

2 isotopic composition of K-65 silos 1 and 2, 

3 and there you see the silo 1. The radium-226 

4 activity was 477, and for the lead-210, 202. 

5 So you realize you are way out of 

6 equilibrium, and that deficit has to be 

7 accountable by the escape of radon-222. 

8 That's the only explanation you can have, 

9 assuming these numbers have merit. 

10 On that basis, I calculated the 

11 loss of about 60-some-thousand curies per year 

12 for silo 1 as an average value. I don't have 

13 the numbers in front of me of the calculation 

14 I did on a back of a scrap piece of paper, but 

15 it is clearly a value that does not jibe with 

16 John Till's numbers. 

17 MR. NETON; Hans, is it not 

18 possible that radon decayed in the head space? 

19 I mean, you are assuming that, since it is 

20 not there, it all went out the stack, but 

21 you've got a head space there that holds up 

22 the gas. Do you think that -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 249

1 MR. BEHLING; Well, it is possible, 

2 but for the majority of years there was no cap 

3 on those silos, meaning that the head space 

4 was free to vent into the atmosphere. I don't 

5 remember the year that there was a cap put on 

6 top of the silos, which would make that 

7 argument a moot argument. 

8 MR. NETON: Well, the silos I've 

9 seen have always had caps on top of them. 

10 They weren't open structures. 

11 MR. BEHLING; If I recall, the caps 

12 were put on very late, maybe Eighty. 

13 MR. NETON: Well, we need to look 

14 at it. 

15 CHAIR CLAWSON: Excuse us. Did 

16 someone try to say something? 

17 MR. BEHLING: Arjun, go ahead. 

18 MR. MAKHIJANI: I think Jim and 

19 Hans are talking about two different things. 

20 There is the vent cap over the -- 

21 MR. NETON: That was inside the 

22 dome itself. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 250

1 MR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, inside the 

2 dome, and what Jim is talking about is the 

3 head space. 

4 MR. NETON: They weren't open 

5 cylinders, Hans. They were closed domed 

6 structures. In fact, that was -- the 

7 bentonite clay cap was added to retard the 

8 migration of radon out of the material itself. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: There had to be a 

10 diffusion -- we need to see -- submit 

11 something. 

12 MR. MAURO: I think that is a wise 

13 decision. It sounds like SC&A needs to submit 

14 to the work group the calculations of the 

15 deficit, and then -- and take a look at it and 

16 see if you -- we don't want back-of-the17 envelope. 

18 MR. NETON: The head space 

19 concentrations were horrendous in those silos. 

20 MR. MAURO: I think we have that 

21 data, too, because that is what -- 

22 MR. NETON: Right, but that needs 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 251

1 to be considered in the compilation. Yes. 

2 MR. MAURO: Yes, and the end 

3 result. Very good. That's a good point. So, 

4 Hans, we are going to put together a White 

5 Paper, and factor in the measurements -- 

6 because they had to make those, because the 

7 way John Till did the work is he took samples 

8 from the head space, and then owing to delta P 

9 and diffusion coefficients through the cracks, 

10 he had a breathing rate. 

11 Now you are saying that that may be 

12 where the radon is. The deficit is -- 

13 MR. NETON: There is a huge 

14 equilibrium concentration of radon in the head 

15 space. 

16 MR. MAURO: But wouldn't that -- 

17 where then -- 

18 MR. NETON: Oh, drop on top of the 

19 dome, played out on the inside. 

20 MR. MAURO: So in other words, the 

21 deficit may be that it is not -- the polonium 

22 and the lead may not be where you think it is. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 252

1 For example -- 

2 MR. NETON: Well, the radon is 

3 going to migrate far from its site of origin. 

4 It is not going to stay there. 

5 MR. MAURO: Right. I remember they 

6 described a sample of it. I think they took 

7 cores that went across and down, and pulled 

8 the sample and got the concentration; because 

9 there was some kind of a -- it wasn't 

10 necessarily uniform, because what they were 

11 trying to do is get an inventory. 

12 So we are operating on the premise 

13 that the inventory inside the box, inside the 

14 silo, has a certain number for radium, and a 

15 number for the progeny is much lower than we 

16 thought it would be. 

17 MR. NETON; I'm saying it is not 

18 uniformly distributed inside that box. 

19 MR. MAURO: Right. But the intent 

20 of the sample -- 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Taking into 

22 account the headspace. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 253

1 MR. MAURO: Taking into 

2 consideration, okay. 

3 MR. NETON: I don't know if that's 

4 half or not, but I think that is something 

5 that needs to be considered. 

6 CHAIR CLAWSON: Will SC&A write 

7 something up for the work group and NIOSH to 

8 be able to review? 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can I ask? I 

10 think we got to pay attention to speaking one 

11 at a time, but can I ask: In the matrix on 

12 this, Mark, 4.2.1, 4.2-1, whatever, in the 

13 NIOSH response there's a couple of things that 

14 indicate that you were going to provide more 

15 information. I just wanted to follow up on 

16 that. 

17 The first one says provide radon 

18 breath data. Raffinate air data is being 

19 assembled into a spreadsheet. Is this 

20 completed? I guess it comes up in the later -

21 - or in the earlier action. I don't know. 

22 MR. MAURO: Yes. You just moved on 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 254

1 to the second. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, okay, I'm 

3 sorry. 

4 MR. MAURO: No, that's okay. 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, then the 

6 last thing, it also talks about more data 

7 being gathered. So we will get that in the 

8 next item, I guess, but I just wanted to make 

9 sure we didn't miss any NIOSH actions. 

10 MR. ROLFES: Right. Like I said, 

11 to the best of my knowledge, we have provided 

12 everything that we have been asked and put it 

13 onto the O Drive. The radon breath data are 

14 there on the O Drive under breath radon 

15 bioassay, and I believe there is data here for 

16 1952, 1953 and 1954. 

17 Let's see. The raffinate air 

18 monitoring data: There is air monitoring data 

19 in the daily weighted exposure reports as 

20 well. I know some of the thorium air 

21 monitoring data that we had entered into an 

22 Excel spreadsheet did contain some raffinate 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 255

1 air data, but ultimately we have radon breath 

2 data, which would have recorded an 

3 individual's exposures to raffinates. 

4 MR. MAURO: And as you know, we did 

5 not discuss this issue at the last meeting, 

6 and SC&A has not taken -- I have in the 

7 records that, yes, the way to deal with one of 

8 the problems, the raffinates, is you could 

9 estimate radium intake based on radon 

10 exhalation. 

11 Apparently, you put the material on 

12 the O Drive, and that's where we are right 

13 now. 

14 MR. ROLFES: There is also -- in 

15 some claimants= files as well there is radium 

16 excretion data in some. 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: That was the one 

18 point I was looking at, was that after that 

19 statement -- at the very end of that 

20 statement, it says radon breath data is also 

21 radon excretion data, and more data are being 

22 gathered. I didn't understand, like what's 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 256

1 that mean, you know. 

2 Everything you've found is posted 

3 there. Right? 

4 MR. ROLFES: Right. Right, with 

5 the exception of the daily weighted exposure 

6 studies, which, for example, you know, an 

7 individual could have been exposed to 

8 raffinates in plant 2/3 or something. 

9 Those additional reports are 

10 available in the site research database. They 

11 haven't been pooled because there's 160 of 

12 them, and I think that is why we had agreed 

13 just to do those two years, for '55 and '66. 

14 That could sort of take care of two items with 

15 one set of reports. 

16 CHAIR CLAWSON: Mark, was there -- 

17 on site, was there any radon measurements or 

18 so forth that you know. The reason being is 

19 because in my Mound interviews there is an 

20 individual that came down that was requested 

21 by Fernald to come down and do some radon 

22 measurements. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 257

1 I think we have discussed this once 

2 before, and we could never find -- 

3 MR. ROLFES: What they would do 

4 when they would collect an air sample is 

5 typically allow it to decay for, say, three 

6 days or a week to allow the radon to decay. 

7 There are documented air samples 

8 for radon concentrations in the early years, 

9 and for example, if an individual was exposed 

10 to radon and inhaled only radon and gave a 

11 radon breath bioassay sample, they would be 

12 exhaling some of that radon that they breathed 

13 in. 

14 What we are doing with that radon 

15 bioassay data is assuming that that radon 

16 source also had associated with it the radium 

17 and other radionuclides that the individual 

18 would have inhaled to be excreting that amount 

19 of -- or exhaling that amount of radon. 

20 There are data. In the more recent 

21 years, I know that was one of the things that 

22 was pretty commonly done. There was a lot of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 258

1 research with window panes and CR-39 track 

2 edge detectors to determine what some of the 

3 historical concentrations of radon in some of 

4 the different plants, inside and outside of 

5 the plants were done. 

6 The Susan Pinney report that was 

7 produced and just discussed at a public 

8 meeting by a different division of NIOSH or a 

9 different office of NIOSH focused on the 

10 reconstruction from 1952 through 1989 of 

11 historical radon exposures to workers by 

12 plant, by shift. That was also information 

13 that we did consider in the SEC evaluation for 

14 Fernald. 

15 MR. NETON: Just to clarify, those 

16 are for outdoor exposures, though, not in the 

17 plants. 

18 MS. BALDRIDGE: Could I ask? I 

19 attended that meeting, and I asked Dr. 

20 Horning, who did the research along with Dr. 

21 Pinney, as to whether the CR-39 process of 

22 reading the radium off of the glass panes 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 259

1 differentiated between radon-222 from uranium 

2 and radon-220 from thorium. 

3 I was told it did, but none of the 

4 thorium radon was included in the report. 

5 They also brought up the issue of the Q-11 

6 silos near the production area in the center 

7 of the facility. 

8 MR. ROLFES: Right. Those Q-11 

9 silos were found to be a contributor as well 

10 to the radon exposures that were incurred on 

11 site, and that was considered in the study as 

12 well. 

13 MR. NETON: Well, I can attest to 

14 what was measured, because I placed those 

15 detectors myself on some of the buildings, and 

16 the analysis that was done in England by 

17 Professor Henshaw did indeed differentiate 

18 between the daughters of thorium and the 

19 daughters of radon, radon-222. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Based on track 

21 length? 

22 MR. NETON: Track length, yes, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 260

1 because you got a very high energy alpha from 

2 the thorium. It=s like 8.78 MeV, something 

3 like that. So that was the initial question 

4 when they identified the large -- I was 

5 shocked at the number of tracks these 

6 detectors pick up on plant 2/3, I think it 

7 was, on the outside windows. 

8 So I actually called him, and I 

9 said could this have been from thorium, and he 

10 said, no. He measured the track lengths, and 

11 they were not long enough to be related to 

12 thorium exposure. 

13 The other thing about thoron 

14 daughters is thoron gas has a 55 second half15 life. So in general, it doesn't migrate very 

16 far from the source, as like radon gas has a 

17 3.8 day half-life. 

18 MS. BALDRIDGE: How would you -- is 

19 there any data or comparison as far as how 

20 much thorium there was on site as compared to 

21 uranium? Thorium would have been how much of 

22 the -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 261

1 MR. MORRIS: I don't recall, but I 

2 could answer that question for you. 

3 MS. BALDRIDGE: She indicated that 

4 the reason it was insignificant was that it 

5 was less than a half of a percent. 

6 MR. MORRIS: That sounds, by mass, 

7 about right to me. 

8 MR. NETON: There were 15,000 

9 containers of thorium at one time on this 

10 plant site. 

11 MS. BALDRIDGE: Even considering it 

12 was a national repository? 

13 MR. NETON: It was in one location 

14 stored in a building. 

15 MR. MORRIS: Building 65. The 

16 thorium campaigns were tiny compared to the 

17 uranium campaigns. I mean, they weren't tiny 

18 by anybody's standards, except by comparison 

19 to uranium, which is, I think, what you just 

20 asked. 

21 MR. NETON: I think we have 

22 measurements for thoron concentrations in 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 262

1 building 64-65. 

2 MR. ROLFES: Correct. We do have 

3 that data for Building 64 and 65. That was 

4 the largest repository on site, and let's see. 

5 We have data. I don't want to get an 

6 incorrect date, but I know we have data from 

7 back in the large production campaign in 1954-

8 55 from plant 9. 

9 There is some air monitoring data 

10 where they were allowing the thoron to decay 

11 before they determined the long-lived 

12 activity. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I might 

14 insert here, just as a reference point, that 

15 the process you describe is always done for 

16 air samples anywhere, as far as I know. That 

17 would not be unique to Fernald. You are going 

18 to get radon and thoron daughters everywhere 

19 in the world virtually. 

20 MR. NETON: That's true, but it is 

21 somewhat exacerbated by the Fernald situation. 

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, but to get the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 263

1 long-lived end product, you always have to let 

2 radon and thoron decay, and you can use that 

3 measurement also to back-calculate the amounts 

4 of those as well. 

5 MR. MAURO: What I'm hearing is 

6 that thee are two methods that are available 

7 to us to evaluate the doses to workers on site 

8 from radon. One method is apparently a lot of 

9 radon exhaled from this K-65 silos, and based 

10 on that exhalation rate -- and let's say it's 

11 the 6,000 curies per year number, as estimated 

12 by Till. Then from there, if I recall, you 

13 use some atmospheric dispersion assumptions to 

14 estimate what the airborne concentration of 

15 radon would be in the vicinity of these silos, 

16 and that would be the concentrations that 

17 would be experience by on-site workers. 

18 I'm hearing that, independent of 

19 that, you have these other on-site 

20 measurements of actual -- as if you had some 

21 kind of detector. 

22 MR. NETON: CR-39 detector like you 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 264

1 tape to the glass, the window glass. 

2 MR. MAURO: On the buildings? 

3 MR. NETON: Yes. 

4 MR. MAURO: And so in effect -- 

5 MR. NETON: The glass is sort of a 

6 long term integrator of accumulator radon 

7 exposure, because you get the deposition of 

8 the daughters on the pane, and then when the 

9 ones that ejected out were going out embed the 

10 polonium-210 in the glass itself. You put 

11 these CR-39 detectors on the surface. You 

12 measure the alphas coming off that's embedded 

13 in the glass. 

14 MR. MAURO: Now is there a way in 

15 which these two independent sets of 

16 measurements that deal with the same subject 

17 can be used to confirm each other? 

18 MR. NETON: Well, actually, see, 

19 there was two separate source terms. There 

20 was the K-65 silos themselves, but there was 

21 also a certain amount of ore processed through 

22 the plant itself, and that is where this 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 265

1 analysis comes in, because it was measuring 

2 another source term. 

3 There was another -- not to confuse 

4 terms, but a silo near plant 1 and 2-3 that 

5 contained at times the ore that was being run 

6 through the plant in the very early years, and 

7 in fact, at one point I think the -- the 

8 material was in K-65. It was actually stored 

9 on pads in these containers near plant 1, I 

10 think, the plant 1 pad. 

11 MR. MAURO: So then these two 

12 numbers -- I was just look at the way -- 

13 MR. NETON: Yes. The rest is 

14 complementary. I mean one is the radon source 

15 term from the silos. The other one is the 

16 radon more localized due to the storage of the 

17 K-65 type material and processing. 

18 MR. MAURO: On the pad. 

19 MR. NETON: On the pad. 

20 MR. MAURO: Never mind. 

21 CHAIR CLAWSON: So -- 

22 MR. MAURO: So I see we have one 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 266

1 item, action item. Tell me if there is 

2 anything else. We need to deliver a report to 

3 you, Hans' calculations showing why, based on 

4 our analysis, that the 6,000 curies per year 

5 might be too low, substantially too low, and 

6 we can certainly take into consideration your 

7 recommendation to look at the head space. 

8 MR. NETON: Yes, and I don't know 

9 that -- has the Penny Horning/Horning Penny 

10 study been incorporated into the site profile 

11 yet? 

12 MR. ROLFES: We were in the process 

13 of revising the information, but it hasn't 

14 been released or submitted to us. We have 

15 been working on white papers, et cetera. 

16 MR. NETON: Right. That is 

17 something that needs -- probably also needs to 

18 be looked at, because that's a separate source 

19 term that is now going to be included in the 

20 site profile. 

21 So virtually anyone who ventured on 

22 the site during those years would be assigned 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 267

1 some level of radon intake, based on the 

2 Horning Penny site. 

3 MR. MAURO: So let me see if I -- 

4 MR. NETON: We already do assign 

5 radon intakes or radon exposures, and that is 

6 documented in the site profile. But it is 

7 going to be adjusted based on new data that we 

8 receive. 

9 MR. MAURO: So there are two major 

10 sources of on-site exposures to radon. One is 

11 the early days. There will be actual drums. 

12 MR. NETON: Belgian Congo ore, too. 

13 MR. MAURO: And there was ore, and 

14 that was separate. So right now in the TBD 

15 the exposures to on-site radon -- am I 

16 correct? -- are limited to this 6,000 curie 

17 per year. 

18 MR. NETON: I believe that is 

19 correct. 

20 MR. MAURO: Are you saying there 

21 are other sources that need to be factored in. 

22 MR. NETON: Right. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 268

1 MR. MAURO: And the Susan Pinney 

2 report is going to help with that. Okay. 

3 MR. NETON: That is being 

4 incorporated now. It's actually in 

5 publication. It just was released in the 

6 Journal of Exposure or something, assessment. 

7 It was, I know, the NIOSH funded study, by 

8 the way. That's how I know. I was the 

9 project officer when I was over in the other 

10 division. 

11 MR. MAKHIJANI: Can I ask a 

12 question about the radon? In the response 

13 here NIOSH says that you have radium breath 

14 data for the raffinates, and I presume that's 

15 relating from any intakes from the silos, but 

16 silo 3 had a significant disequilibrium 

17 between thorium-230 and radium. 

18 There's a lot more thorium than 

19 radium, because it was the cold raffinate, and 

20 the radium is already gone, if I remember 

21 right. I don't have the data in front of me. 

22 So how does radon breath data help 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 269

1 with that, because a lot of the silo 3 dust 

2 would not be reflected in radon breath data? 

3 MR. ROLFES: Arjun, this is Mark.. 

4 If you take a look at the concentration of 

5 thorium-230, we are talking, in silo 3, the 

6 concentration is actually less than the 

7 concentration in silos 1 and 2, based on the 

8 actual measurement data. 

9 So if we are using radon breath 

10 data to reconstruct intakes of the raffinates, 

11 and we are applying the concentration that is 

12 shown in silo 1 or 2 to that radon breath 

13 data, it is going to overestimate the actual 

14 exposure from thorium-230 that would be 

15 obtained in comparison to the one that we 

16 would get from silo 3. 

17 The caution is that there is 

18 virtually no radium. There is very little 

19 radium concentration in silo 3. So the 

20 approach that we have said we were going to 

21 use would be to use the silo 1 or 2 -- I 

22 believe we said the higher of the two -- in 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 270

1 interpreting those radon breath samples. 

2 MR. MAKHIJANI: But workers who 

3 handled silo 3 waste would have almost no 

4 radium. So you won't detect any radon breath 

5 in them. So unless you are talking about 

6 workers who handled waste from all three 

7 silos, I agree, and your scenario will be 

8 claimant favorable. But it would not be for 

9 workers who did not handle -- and silo 1 and 2 

10 -- I mean, silo 1 was just for a couple of 

11 years. Silo 2 also, just in the Fifties. But 

12 in the later years you just had silo 3 being 

13 handled, and I can't see how this method can 

14 be applied to those who handled silo 3 waste. 

15 MR. ROLFES: I would have to take a 

16 look back in our interview notes, but as I 

17 recall, workers would have worked on both the 

18 hot side and the cold side of plant 2-3. They 

19 wouldn't have worked in only one side and been 

20 solely exposed to radium depleted materials 

21 per se. 

22 MR. MAKHIJANI: But the old 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 271

1 concentrates that came to Fernald were radium 

2 depleted. So the whole process that resulted 

3 in the silo 3 waste was radium depleted. The 

4 radium never came to Fernald. I stayed where 

5 the concentrates were made. 

6 MR. ROLFES: No. We just said that 

7 211 was processed, and that was radium bearing 

8 material. 

9 MR. MAKHIJANI: Well, no, no, I'm 

10 not talking about the Congo ores. I'm talking 

11 about ore concentrates. Jim Neton, correct me 

12 if I am wrong. You undoubtedly know this 

13 better than me. But as I understand it, silo 

14 3 has materials from the ore concentrates, and 

15 the radium -- ore concentrates themselves are 

16 depleted in radium rather than to thorium. 

17 MR. NETON: Yes. I think that is 

18 correct. 

19 MR. ROLFES: Yes. It is depleted 

20 in radium and uranium as well. 

21 MR. NETON: But I think Arjun's 

22 point is that the material arrived at Fernald 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 272

1 depleted in radium. So if one worked only 

2 with silo 3 material, a radon breath analysis 

3 would not be informative of your exposure to 

4 silo 3 material. That's true. 

5 MR. MAKHIJANI: That is my point. 

6 MR. MAURO: But I understand -- I'm 

7 listening to this now. But you are saying 

8 that silos 1 and 2 contained radium-226 and 

9 thorium-230. 

10 MR. ROLFES: Yes. Correct. 

11 MR. MAURO: And thorium -- and they 

12 are in equilibrium, I guess, or close to. 

13 MR. NETON: The equilibrium is 

14 pretty well established. 

15 MR. MAURO: Pretty well. The ratio 

16 is pretty well established. So now we have 

17 radon breath data for people who worked with 

18 silos 1 and 2. Okay. So we could estimate 

19 the radium-226 intake for that person, and you 

20 are going to assume that the equivalent amount 

21 of thorium-230 was taken in also by that 

22 person. Okay. So that's how you deal with 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 273

1 the people who were exposed to radium-236 and 

2 thorium-230 at silos 1 and 2. 

3 Now move over to silo 3. We got a 

4 problem. Let's say all it contains is 

5 thorium-230. Now if the concentration of 

6 thorium-230 in silo 3 is less than the 

7 concentration of thorium-230 in 1 and 2, you 

8 would argue that any dose you calculate for 

9 the people from 1 and 2 from thorium-230 would 

10 be bounding for the people from -- that is not 

11 correct? 

12 MR. NETON: No, because you've got 

13 a separate source term here. I mean, you are 

14 missing -- there is no -- 

15 MR. MAURO: You just changed hats, 

16 by the way. 

17 MR. NETON: I know. 

18 MR. MAURO: I'm just looking for 

19 the right answer. 

20 MR. NETON: Believe it or not, I'll 

21 say what I believe is correct. 

22 MR. MAURO: No, I'm trying to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 274

1 figure out the right answer. 

2 MR. NETON: No. You have a 

3 separate source term in silo 3. I mean, it's 

4 an independent source term. So the amount of 

5 radium in your body is totally irrelevant to 

6 how much thorium you could have been exposed 

7 to in silo 3. 

8 MR. MAURO: But I heard it said, 

9 though, that any estimate for the intake for 1 

10 and 2 for thorium is going to bound. 

11 MR. NETON: No, because you could 

12 have been working on -- it's only going to 

13 bound what was given in silo 1 and 2, but silo 

14 three -- 

15 MR. MAURO: It might have been much 

16 worse. 

17 MR. NETON: You could have five 

18 times more thorium-230 in your body, say, for 

19 example, and not show any radium coming out. 

20 MR. MAURO: So you're saying that 

21 workers at silo 3 could have taken in more 

22 thorium than workers at silos 1 and 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 

 275

1 MR. NETON: Well, possibly. I 

2 don't know. 

3 MR. MAURO: That's what I heard you 

4 say. I heard you say somehow you had a hook 

5 on the problem, but maybe you don't. 

6 MR. ROLFES: I would have to take a 

7 look back. I know we did discuss this, but 

8 based on interviews, we -- Bryce, I don't know 

9 if you might be able to better answer this 

10 than I. 

11 From my recollection, the 

12 individuals who would have been exposed -- it 

13 wasn't a separate defined process where they 

14 would do only ore concentrates at one time and 

15 radium bearing ores at another time. 

16 From what I understood, both types 

17 of ores, ore concentrate and the radium 

18 bearing ore, would have been processed on 

19 different sides of the plant at the same time, 

20 and those same individuals, because of 

21 external exposure concerns with the radium 

22 bearing materials, would have gone over to the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 276

1 cold side of the plant to work with some of 

2 the ore concentrates. 

3 Does that sound familiar to you or 

4 am I incorrect? 

5 That was for Bryce Rich. We don't 

6 hear you, Bryce. If you are out there, you 

7 might be muted. 

8 MR. NETON: I still think we need 

9 to go back and look at this issue. Silo 3, if 

10 indeed it came in as depleted radium, we need 

11 to look at the process of what transpired from 

12 arrival on site to entombment, so to speak, in 

13 silo 3 and the potential for exposure and 

14 figure out what we are doing with that. 

15 I might be missing something, but I 

16 think we need to look a little better at that. 

17 CHAIR CLAWSON: Could we take a 

18 break for 10 minutes? 

19 MR. KATZ: A 10-minute break. 

20 MR. BEHLING: Can I ask a quick 

21 question before we break? This is Hans. 

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, Hans. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 277

1 MR. BEHLING: Am I to assume that 

2 we are going to assess internal exposures for 

3 silo workers on the basis of radon breath 

4 samples? 

5 MR. ROLFES: That is correct. 

6 MR. BEHLING: As opposed to what 

7 was discussed in the TBD, because I am 

8 looking at the TBD, and I am looking at the 

9 comment that goes as follows: If sample 

10 datasheets from 1953 time period have been 

11 found and provide insight in the operational 

12 exposures -- and that in essence was the 

13 method that was derived -- that was implied 

14 for use in dose reconstruction. 

15 Then it goes on: The only bioassay 

16 information related to internal exposures to 

17 radium or the associate contaminants are a few 

18 radon breath samples in 1953 time period. 

19 Am I right in assuming that you are 

20 now going to use those radon breath samples in 

21 lieu of air sampling data? 

22 MR. ROLFES: Let me make a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 278

1 correction to the data that we do have. It's 

2 roughly 200 radon breath samples per year from 

3 1952, 1953 and 1954. I believe we have also 

4 provided a sample dose reconstruction using 

5 those radon bioassay results to reconstruct 

6 raffinate exposures. 

7 MR. BEHLING: Are those for K-65 

8 workers exclusively or for everybody? 

9 MR. ROLFES: I believe there were 

10 individuals that were working with the K-65 

11 materials and also people that were working 

12 with radium bearing ores in plant 2-3. 

13 MR. BEHLING: Do we have a 

14 breakdown as to how many people fall in each 

15 of those categories? 

16 MR. ROLFES: We didn't break it 

17 down. We just provided all the data that we 

18 had recovered. 

19 MR. BEHLING: I'm just questioning 

20 how it is that in the TBD we refer to the 

21 breath analysis as a very few bioassays, and 

22 now we are, obviously, looking at that data 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 279

1 set for dose reconstruction. 

2 MR. ROLFES: At the time of the 

3 Technical Basis Documents' writing and 

4 approval back in 2003, we didn't have as much 

5 data as we do now. Following as part of the 

6 SEC process, we went back and recovered 

7 countless additional records, thousands of 

8 additional records, and those additional 

9 records are now being incorporated into our 

10 files and into the Technical Basis Document 

11 as appropriate for dose reconstructions for 

12 Fernald workers. 

13 MR. BEHLING: Okay. 

14 MR. NETON: Break time? 

15 MR. KATZ: Okay. We are breaking. 

16 We will set up about quarter after. 

17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

18 matter went off the record at 3:00 p.m. and 

19 resumed at 3:17 p.m.) 

20 MR. KATZ: This is the Fernald 

21 Working Group, and we are starting back up 

22 again. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 280

1 CHAIR CLAWSON: Okay. John, we 

2 are going to -- are we finished with this 

3 part? 

4 MR. MAURO: Yes. The only other 

5 point is, you know, we jumped to what I call 

6 task 3 dealing with thorium-232 based on the 

7 derived daily weighted exposure. 

8 There were a number of issues. 

9 There were maybe seven or eight, maybe more, 

10 issues that were surrounding that. But I 

11 figure -- but the heart of the matter was the 

12 downloading of the data that NIOSH is going to 

13 do. So might as well just leave that on ice. 

14 In other words, let's leave the 

15 thorium DWE issues and all satellite issues. 

16 Maybe we'll just move on to -- move on. 

17 CHAIR CLAWSON: Then we have some 

18 action items, though. SC&A was going to write 

19 up the radon. 

20 MR. MAURO: Oh, yes. Oh, yes, 

21 sure, the ones we just talked about. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, we captured 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 281

1 those. 

2 MR. MAURO: Oh, yes. I sort of 

3 jumped right over that, saying where do we go 

4 next. 

5 CHAIR CLAWSON: Right. I guess one 

6 of the things -- because I've got to 

7 apologize. I got a little bit confused. 

8 The Pinney report is in draft form. 

9 MR. NETON: No, no. The Pinney 

10 report is complete. We are working on 

11 incorporating it into the site profile. 

12 CHAIR CLAWSON: Okay. But could we 

13 get a -- so that when SC&A does this, I'm 

14 wondering if we could get a copy of that sent 

15 out to the work group or so forth. 

16 MR. ROLFES: I want to take a look 

17 to see. I've got a draft report. I've got 

18 the Fernald exposure assessment and a letter 

19 with some slides as well. 

20 Now, additionally, there is another 

21 manuscript that was submitted to a journal. 

22 So I've got that from her as well. The letter 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 282

1 is on the O: drive under Fernald Pinney Report 

2 from back in -- let's see -- 2006, correct. 

3 Thank you. These are from August, September 

4 and November of 2006. One is from 2004 as 

5 well, which is the date of the -- by someone 

6 else besides myself. 

7 CHAIR CLAWSON: And that is the 

8 same stuff that is going to be implemented 

9 into that, because I know we may have a 

10 report, but I want to make sure that we are 

11 reviewing what is going to be used for the 

12 dose reconstruction. 

13 MR. ROLFES: Sure. That hasn't 

14 been documented yet in a report that is 

15 releasable for a website. The Pinney report 

16 CADA is in the NIOSH site research database. 

17 However, we haven't incorporated that fully 

18 into the site profile yet. So as soon as that 

19 is done, we can make that available. 

20 CHAIR CLAWSON: To SC&A and the 

21 working group? 

22 MR. ROLFES: We can also submit the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 283

1 manuscripts, if you would like, that have the 

2 raw data and the discussion of the data if you 

3 would like that. 

4 MR. MAURO: Okay. Let me 

5 understand. Do I have an action item here? 

6 CHAIR CLAWSON: Well, yes, you've 

7 got an action item. 

8 MR. MAURO: In other words, the 

9 action item isn't the Susan Pinney report. It 

10 is some other report that is coming out or you 

11 will be providing? 

12 MR. ROLFES: It would ultimately be 

13 our site profile. 

14 MR. MAURO: Site profile? Okay. 

15 So we sit tight until we see that or do we 

16 start work and take a look at Susan Pinney? 

17 CHAIR CLAWSON: Like I said, the 

18 Susan Pinney report, if I remember what I 

19 breezed through it, it explained quite a bit. 

20 But what I want to make sure is what we are -

21 - the portion of it that is going to be used 

22 for our dose reconstruction. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 284

1 MR. ROLFES: Sure. 

2 CHAIR CLAWSON: So sit tight. 

3 CHAIR CLAWSON: Sit tight. Yes, 

4 sit tight. What about the silo 3 that we 

5 discussed in there where it was storing 

6 depleted -- 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: I have that as a 

8 NIOSH action, that NIOSH is going to evaluate 

9 the ability to reconstruct raffinates, 

10 specifically for silo 3. 

11 MR. MAURO: No action. 

12 CHAIR CLAWSON: Okay. I asked Jim 

13 off to the side there. There was a Jenkins 

14 report, and I was just going to see if he 

15 could find it out, because it gave a little 

16 bit of information on the radon issue. 

17 Jenkins was out of Mound. I was just going to 

18 see. If he could find it, I would appreciate 

19 it. I just talked to Jim about that. So -- 

20 MR. MORRIS: What is Mr. Jenkins' 

21 first name? 

22 CHAIR CLAWSON: Phil Jenkins. And 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 285

1 this came just merely by accident, because in 

2 a Mound interview we were talking about radon 

3 at Mound, and he started going on to some 

4 information about Fernald and talked about a 

5 report that he had done down there on that. 

6 So -- 

7 MR. MORRIS: What time frame do you 

8 think that is in, Brad? 

9 CHAIR CLAWSON: Probably in the 

10 early eighties is kind of what I got 

11 information from. And if we can't, I just may 

12 -- he just expressed that he had been asked to 

13 come down there and do some measurements 

14 inside of the plants and so forth like that, 

15 that were a little bit different. We are just 

16 going to see if we could find something on 

17 that. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Phil still lives 

19 in this area. He lives in Dayton, and he is 

20 listed in the Health Physics Society 

21 directory, if you end up needing to contact 

22 him. I'm not sure what kind of report it was. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 286

1 Is it an agency report? 

2 CHAIR CLAWSON: It was actually in 

3 cooperation with Fernald. He was asked to 

4 come down and do some evaluations. 

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: It isn't a "Jenkins 

6 Report" is what I'm asking. 

7 CHAIR CLAWSON: No, we are not for 

8 sure, and that is what I was asking Jim to 

9 kind of look into, because it was kind of an 

10 environmental report that he was a part of 

11 that had some information in it. 

12 MR. NETON: It sounds like, when I 

13 was talking to Brad, that he might have been 

14 actually measuring the radon in the head 

15 space, just kind of a very specialized thing. 

16 MR. MORRIS: I know that Grand 

17 Junction -- GJPO radon staff measured the head 

18 space radon in the mid-Nineties. 

19 MR. NETON: I don't know what -- we 

20 could do a search. 

21 CHAIR CLAWSON: If we can just do 

22 that, I would appreciate that, and then go 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 287

1 from there. 

2 Is there anything that we have 

3 missed, because there is a lot of different 

4 things going on. Anything that you can think 

5 of? 

6 MR. MAURO: I just want some 

7 clarification, that we do not have an action 

8 item on the Pinney report or on silo 3. We 

9 are just sitting tight until -- 

10 CHAIR CLAWSON: Correct, until 

11 NIOSH -- that is in NIOSH's court. Okay. 

12 MR. MAURO: Okay. I am going to 

13 move on to -- 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Now were -- I was 

15 going to ask: 4.2-2 and -3, they sort of 

16 overlap the discussion we've had already, but 

17 I don't know if you -- 

18 MR. MAURO: 4.4 -- yes. We are 

19 about to do 4.4. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, 4.2-2. 

21 MR. MAURO: Oh, let me see if we 

22 missed that, 4.2-2. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 288

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: It is related to 

2 raffinate exposures in plant 2 and 3. 

3 MR. MAURO: Yes. I was assuming 

4 that the same issues -- it was the radon. 

5 There was the issue of -- I think your 

6 position was radon breath, and the question 

7 was do you have enough -- that was put to you 

8 -- enough data to be able to reconstruct the 

9 radium intake and the associated thorium 

10 intake based on radon breath data. 

11 That would apply to not only -- to 

12 a lot of places where you had, I guess, 

13 raffinates. It had to do, I think, with the 

14 silos or with the opening. There were several 

15 places where you had that. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Let me just 

17 understand. Up here I said that there is data 

18 available, and there is a spreadsheet that has 

19 been assembled. Did I get that correct? 

20 Raffinate air data is available in spreadsheet 

21 form, or did I jump the gun on that? 

22 MR. ROLFES: No, that was -- I 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 289

1 don't know if that was some sort of -- 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, but there is 

3 radon breath data. 

4 MR. ROLFES: I'm trying to think of 

5 an appropriate word, but I think it might have 

6 been from an earlier approach that we were 

7 going to use and like an artifact thing. 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: But radon breath 

9 data is -- I put radon breath data is 

10 available on the O: drive. Now is the 

11 approach -- I mean, how you are going to use 

12 that or where you are going to use that, is 

13 that outlined in that? 

14 MR. ROLFES: The radon breath data 

15 is on the O: drive. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: The data is there, 

17 but is the approach? 

18 MR. ROLFES: The interpretation of 

19 radon breath data is documented in OTIB 25. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: OTIB 25. 

21 MR. MAURO: And we reviewed that 

22 and found it positive. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 290

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: And you have 

2 looked at that already? 

3 MR. MAURO: Looked at that. We've 

4 reviewed it. 

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: You looked at it 

6 specifically for -- 

7 MR. MAURO: We looked at it solely 

8 from the point of view of the protocol for 

9 taking radon breath samples and converting 

10 that to whole body -- 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: So I think SC&A 

12 needs to follow up on that for Fernald. 

13 MR. MAURO: Okay. Now that becomes 

14 a new action item now that I did not have. 

15 MR. NETON: Well, TIB, though, is 

16 not specific to Fernald. 

17 MR. MAURO: No, it's not. 

18 MR. NETON: It's a generic radon-- 

19 MR. MAURO: Correct. That's why I 

20 asked the question. It sounds like there is 

21 something that you would like us to look into 

22 related to the radon breath data as it applies 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 291

1 to Fernald. I'm not sure what that is. 

2 MR. NETON: Well, I guess I want to 

3 understand -- you know, if there is no action 

4 left for NIOSH on that, you know, through the 

5 radon breath data -- In other words, if the 

6 data is there and, based on TIB 25, I should 

7 know how it is going to be applied. Is that 

8 accurate or not? 

9 MR. ROLFES: TIB 25 would allow you 

10 to determine an individual's body burden of 

11 radium. Knowing that known body burden, you 

12 can calculate an intake of radium-226, and 

13 from that intake you can -- 

14 MR. NETON: It is a simple 

15 conversion. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: But what I'm 

17 asking is what is this -- I mean, radon breath 

18 data -- is it individual data? 

19 MR. ROLFES: Yes. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Or do you need a 

21 co-worker model for some of these others, like 

22 plant 2-3. I'm reading these findings that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 292

1 says the data is inadequate. 

2 MR. MORRIS: I'm reporting that 

3 there may have been, for 1953, maybe 50 or 60 

4 individual results. 

5 MR. ROLFES: Roughly 200 per year, 

6 I think, for '53, '54 and '52. 

7 MR. MORRIS: No claim on being 

8 right on those numbers. But we then figured 

9 out -- we fitted it to a distribution and 

10 calculated percentile values that could have 

11 been used then into that TIB 25. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: So you have sort 

13 of annual co-worker models? 

14 MR. MORRIS: Yes, for three years. 

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: And they would 

16 apply to what areas? 

17 MR. MORRIS: The raffinates area, 

18 plant 2-3. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Anybody that was 

20 in those buildings or whatever? 

21 MR. MORRIS: Yes. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. But I think 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 293

1 you have to review that. 

2 MR. MAURO: Did you want us to take 

3 a look at that? 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

5 MR. MAURO: Okay. 

6 MS. BALDRIDGE: I would like to 

7 make a correction here. If you are trying to 

8 find her report, her name is spelt P-i-n-n-e-y 

9 on here. 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: P-i-n-n-e-y, yes, 

11 I have that in my note. So the radon breath 

12 data also has the -- it's not just the raw 

13 data. 

14 MR. MORRIS: No. It was pretty 

15 simple, actually. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Pretty simple, 

17 but, yes, there is an approach of a model. 

18 MR. MAURO: So the action item is 

19 really -- there is a set of radon breath data, 

20 and with that data there are certain worker 

21 groups at certain time periods that you feel 

22 you can reconstruct the doses -- the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 294

1 raffinates that contain radium. 

2 MR. MORRIS: That's right. That 

3 was all focused on plant 2 and 3 and the 

4 silos. 

5 MR. MAURO: And the silos, and 

6 that's the main areas where they could have 

7 had those type of exposures. 

8 MR. MORRIS: Right. 

9 MR. MAURO: And your question is 

10 check that to see how -- I guess, data 

11 adequacy. It's not the question of the 

12 conversion of radon breath data. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: For data accuracy 

14 for reconstructing those populations we just 

15 discussed. 

16 MR. MAURO: Got it. Okay. I 

17 missed that one. I'm glad you brought it up. 

18 I didn't have that. 

19 Issue number four -- five issues; 

20 we are in the home stretch. Number four: 

21 This has to do -- this was discussed at length 

22 at the last meeting, and it has to do with 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 295

1 chest counts where you are trying to estimate 

2 the thorium-232 intake rate based on chest 

3 count. 

4 The nature of the discussion that 

5 went forward was you are looking at specific 

6 photons, I think, from one of the progeny of 

7 thorium-232, and from that count you could 

8 estimate the body burden. 

9 Now one of the assumptions -- one 

10 of the questions that Hans raised during the 

11 meeting was how you convert those counts to an 

12 intake rate of thorium-232 and associated 

13 doses very much depends on what assumptions 

14 you make regarding the equilibrium between the 

15 radium-232 and its progeny, because that is 

16 what you are looking at, progeny being, I 

17 guess, the radium-228 and then there is 

18 thorium-228. 

19 MR. NETON: It's the radium-228. 

20 MR. MAURO: Yes, that's what you 

21 are counting. 

22 MR. NETON: 220 has got 911 KED. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 296

1 MR. MAURO: Okay, and that's the 

2 one you are counting, but when you have 

3 separated -- I'm thinking about it like this. 

4 Someone just separated in your rate the 

5 thorium from your original ore, and when you 

6 do that, you've got thorium-232 and thorium7 228. Okay? And the thorium-228 has 1.9-year 

8 half-life. 

9 Now that is going to start to 

10 decay. So that's going to start to go away, 

11 and the radium-228 is going to start to come 

12 in. So it's complex daughters growing in, but 

13 the point being Hans pointed out that, 

14 depending on what assumption you make 

15 regarding the degree of equilibrium between 

16 thorium-232 and its progeny when you make the 

17 chest count, will affect the estimate you are 

18 going to come up with per dose. 

19 The outcome of this is that, well, 

20 push comes to shove, you assume it is full 

21 equilibrium, which is your worst case 

22 condition, as opposed to the assumptions that, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 297

1 I think, were made, which were not quite some 

2 other stage of equilibrium. 

3 As a result, if was at full 

4 equilibrium as opposed to partial equilibrium, 

5 you could underestimate the dose by a factor 

6 of 2.4. 

7 It was generally agreed now and 

8 there were also some issues regarding the way 

9 in which the counting was done. It was a 

10 thick crystal versus a thin crystal type of 

11 detector, which was potentially problematic in 

12 your MBAs. 

13 In other words, we have a thick 

14 crystal. You might have to count for a longer 

15 period of time, which is -- 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: I thought we 

17 eliminated that as an issue. 

18 MR. MAURO: That's where I'm 

19 headed. I'm bringing everybody back, that 

20 there was one action item. In other words, 

21 I'm trying to bring everybody up to date. 

22 So all of those issues went by the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 298

1 wayside as an SEC issue. One, push comes to 

2 shove, you make the appropriate corrections 

3 for MBA. Push comes to shove, you make the 

4 appropriate corrections for degree of 

5 equilibrium, so you could place a plausible 

6 upper bound. 

7 So everyone agreeing, that's what 

8 it said in the transcript. Not an SEC issue. 

9 But there was one item that was left somewhat 

10 open. I'll read it. 

11 A review of the transcript -- this 

12 is my notes here -- a review of the transcript 

13 seems to indicate that NIOSH was asked to 

14 follow up and make a clear determination that 

15 the workers that we were chest counting and 

16 are being used to develop a co-worker model 

17 for post-1968 thorium-232 exposures are the 

18 workers that experienced the higher thorium19 232 exposures. 

20 So it is not a measure of the -- a 

21 question of the methodology. It is, when you 

22 do have your data and you do come up with your 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 299

1 array of intakes or exposures and you use that 

2 for your co-worker model, what level of 

3 assurance is there that you've captured the 

4 high end of the distribution? 

5 That's my understanding of the 

6 question. That's how we left things at the 

7 end of the last work group meeting. 

8 MR. MORRIS: What we do know is 

9 that there really were no elevated counts of -

10 - you know, it's not like you had lots of 

11 exposures that were detectable here. So we do 

12 know from memoranda that were contemporary 

13 with beginning rollout of the mobile in vivo 

14 lab into Fernald that they identified 

15 specifically thorium workers. 

16 Then we have found in the dataset 

17 of those first and second year of lung 

18 counting that the thorium workers that were 

19 identified really did get counted, you know, 

20 some minor exceptions of people who were no 

21 longer working there et cetera. 

22 So if the question is focused on, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 300

1 of those 50 or 70 people, were those the 

2 highest 50 or 70 people, I don't think we can 

3 ever answer that question, because the data -- 

4 the detection limits were not good enough for 

5 us to actually say there was a big pod of 

6 elevated workers -- elevated lung counts that 

7 are associated with those workers. 

8 MR. MAURO: So, if I understand 

9 what you are saying, it is that the workers 

10 that were counted, you feel, there is a high 

11 level of assurance that you caught the higher 

12 ones. In other words, there is some level of 

13 assurance that, because all the workers that 

14 were handling and working with this material 

15 that might have been exposed were chest 

16 counted, and were part of -- 

17 MR. MORRIS: That's right. We know 

18 from some memoranda that were contemporary 

19 that they actually identified a set of workers 

20 to be early counted in the lung counting. 

21 MR. MAURO: Okay, and it is 

22 unlikely that there could have been a group of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 301

1 workers that could have gotten substantially 

2 higher exposures that were missed? 

3 MR. MORRIS: No reason to believe 

4 that, I don't think. 

5 MR. ROLFES: Keep in mind that 1968 

6 was the first time anyone from Fernald ever 

7 had a chest count. There were people that 

8 were historically working with thorium that 

9 were sent off-site as early as 1960 time 

10 period that went to the University of 

11 Rochester and provided some thoron breath 

12 analyses that were looked at to determine how 

13 much thorium was in the individual. 

14 They were also given a chest count 

15 at the University of Rochester. There were 

16 other trips to Y-12 for a select number of 

17 individuals, as well as a trip to Wright18 Paterson Air force Base, and this is all prior 

19 to 1968. They range from 1960 through 1965 

20 when some of the individuals who had been 

21 working with thorium were sent off-site to see 

22 how much thorium remained within their body. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 302

1 So we do have that data. When the 

2 individuals began receiving whole body counts 

3 at Fernald, the documentation of their in vivo 

4 count data -- we found, looking through the 

5 data, that a lot of the records had notations 

6 in the top right hand corner. 

7 What I did, I pulled all those 

8 notations. You can't see it from here, but it 

9 says "former thorium worker, former thorium 

10 worker, former thorium worker, former thorium 

11 worker." Somewhere in here there is one that 

12 says "current worker, current thorium worker." 

13 But I have put a list of all the thorium 

14 workers based on the in vivo datasheets onto 

15 the O: drive. That was placed out there in 

16 October. It was October 16th of 2007, so 

17 roughly a year ago. 

18 Additionally, there is -- I've got 

19 some other data here that I am referring to, 

20 also from October of last year. It is a 

21 report of the trip to the University of 

22 Rochester, New York, on November 30, 1962, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 303

1 with some individuals' names. 

2 It says, "These individuals were 

3 sent" -- there's two individuals -- both of 

4 whom had been exposed to thorium in our plant 

5 non-thorium operations. They were sent to the 

6 University of Rochester for breath, thoron and 

7 total body radioactivity measurements. 

8 In short, it says the conclusions 

9 and recommendations -- that is some 

10 meaningless background for the trip. This 

11 information -- I don't need to go through all 

12 of it, unless you would like for me to. This 

13 is on the O: drive as well. 

14 Furthermore, we did find, as Bob 

15 alluded to, a list of individuals, and I 

16 haven't been able to locate it right here in 

17 my box of records, but there was a list, 

18 roughly a one or two-page list. Do you happen 

19 to have it, Bob? 

20 MR. MORRIS: No, I didn't pull that 

21 one up. What I've got is a memo to all NLO 

22 employees from Heatherton. "The following is 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 304

1 information for the purpose of providing 

2 employees with an explanation of some aspects 

3 of the NLO in vivo monitoring program" about 

4 the body counting. And it tells who is going 

5 to get counted and why, and the thorium 

6 workers are in that. 

7 MR. BEHLING: This is Hans Behling. 

8 I just want to make a comment, because I 

9 think this addresses the finding in 4.4-3 in 

10 my report, and the reason why I rate that as 

11 an issue, because in a given memo that was 

12 issued in '68, I believe, in a Health 

13 Protection Appraisal report, the following 

14 statement appears, and I will read it for you. 

15 "Recent in vivo monitoring of NLO 

16 employees utilizing the IDRML indicated eight 

17 employees occurring sustaining 70 to 100 

18 percent over permissible lung burden of 

19 uranium. A serious question has been raised 

20 regarding the validity of the job, suggesting 

21 that the lung exposure for these employees in 

22 vivo indicated a level that probably was not 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 305

1 expected," meaning that the use of air 

2 sampling data was used to identify candidates 

3 for high exposures which, it turns out, would 

4 not have suggested that these individuals 

5 should have had lung burdens ranging from 70 

6 to 80 percent permissible levels. 

7 So I think that was the reason why 

8 I questioned the whole issue of whether or not 

9 the people who were maximally -- potentially 

10 maximally exposed were, in fact, the people 

11 who were actually counted. 

12 I think it goes to John's question. 

13 MR. MORRIS: Well, John, more 

14 specifically in response to what Hans just 

15 said, in this Heatherton memo each employee's 

16 potential for inhaling uranium or thorium 

17 determines if and how often they will be 

18 counted. 

19 For example, a water plant worker's 

20 potential for exposure is practically nil, and 

21 they are not included in the routine in vivo 

22 counting program. Chemical operators who work 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 306

1 daily with uranium or thorium have the 

2 greatest chance of accidentally inhaling these 

3 materials, and are counted at least once each 

4 year. 

5 Workers with only a slight 

6 possibility for such exposure, such as 

7 mechanical employees, are monitored about 

8 every other year. Of course, any employee, 

9 regardless of classification, would be counted 

10 if air dust data or milling results indicated 

11 elevated exposure levels. If an employee was 

12 involved in an incident which might have 

13 caused significant exposure to airborne 

14 uranium or thorium, they would also be 

15 counted. 

16 MR. MAURO: I think I hear where we 

17 are on this. That is, our concern was that 

18 the air sampling data alone was not 

19 necessarily a good enough indicator of who 

20 might be having been exposed. 

21 Your retort is that, well, that 

22 wasn't the only criteria used to determine who 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 307

1 was going to be chest counted, and you listed 

2 a number of criteria just now which go above 

3 and beyond just air sampling. 

4 I guess, you know, that's your 

5 response, and I don't know if that is 

6 satisfactory to the work group, whether or not 

7 that is your criteria. In other words, there 

8 was a full array of criteria, job 

9 descriptions, urine analysis, and air 

10 sampling, all of which triggered -- and 

11 incidents -- which would trigger when a chest 

12 count would be taken. 

13 MR. MORRIS: Right. 

14 MR. MAURO: So you are saying, 

15 given those criteria, it is unlikely that 

16 there were any or very many people who could 

17 have experienced a high level of thorium 

18 exposure and were missed by the chest count 

19 program. That's what I -- 

20 MR. MORRIS: Right. 

21 CHAIR CLAWSON: I guess I am just 

22 kind of coming from the question. That sounds 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 308

1 great on paper, but was it really done? 

2 MR. MORRIS: We looked at that, 

3 Brad, and in fact, the thorium workers were 

4 brought in in the first year when things were 

5 available to use the counter. They actually 

6 did get counted in greater numbers. 

7 We found the memo identifying 

8 thorium workers, and we then went back into 

9 the first year of data, and they were counted, 

10 to a large degree. Most of them were counted 

11 in that first year when the mobile lab was 

12 available. 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: When you say 

14 thorium workers, that's different than what 

15 you just described in those criteria. They 

16 were talking about chemical -- 

17 MR. MORRIS: But there was a prior 

18 population of, you know, people that had 

19 worked thorium chemical processes in prior 

20 years. They identified them early on and 

21 said, when the lab becomes available, let's 

22 count these guys. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 309

1 MR. ROLFES: The main thorium 

2 campaign at Fernald in the early days was in 

3 Plant 9, 1954-1955, and they produced roughly 

4 30 percent of the thorium that Fernald ever 

5 produced. It was that population of workers 

6 that they focused on when they brought the 

7 mobile in vivo unit to the site. 

8 There was a memorandum actually 

9 shortly thereafter, shortly after the in vivo 

10 unit came, saying that these were the 

11 individuals who would have had the potential 

12 for exposure to thorium. They were working in 

13 Plant 9, and they were largely unmonitored 

14 during those years. 

15 They were concerned about the 

16 amount of thorium potentially building up or 

17 that had built up in their bodies, and they 

18 wanted to prioritize those individuals for a 

19 whole body count or for a mobile in vivo 

20 count. 

21 MR. MORRIS: And then when you do 

22 see the logbook from the in vivo counting 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 310

1 laboratory data, there will be a notation on 

2 the page that says "Thorium worker." 

3 Oftentimes, that exactly matched that list. 

4 MR. ROLFES: That document -- I 

5 scanned those lists -- that listing of in vivo 

6 count datasheets for the individuals who had 

7 that notation on their open safety in vivo 

8 count datasheet and put it onto the O: drive. 

9 It's titled "List of Thorium and Former 

10 Thorium Workers at FMPC." 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: And then what is 

12 the approach for other workers that were in 

13 Plant 9 during that time period? I'm just 

14 guessing that there were maintenance people in 

15 and out of there or others. These are 

16 probably the routine chem op thorium workers, 

17 but is the approach to use -- 

18 MR. MORRIS: That is where the DWE 

19 reports come in. Right. 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: That is covered in 

21 that part. 

22 MR. MAURO: Well, the DWE reports -
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 311

1 - that was for the pre-'68. 

2 MR. MORRIS: Yes. 

3 MR. MAURO: But now it is all from 

4 post-'68. 

5 MR. MORRIS: I misunderstood the 

6 question. I'm sorry. 

7 MR. MAURO: What I thought I heard, 

8 it was post-'68, you got yourself a collection 

9 of workers that you believe may have been 

10 exposed to thorium, and you have identified 

11 them as potential thorium workers. You do a 

12 chest count. You have a dataset of those 

13 workers. 

14 Now you are in a position where you 

15 can do dose reconstruction for those workers. 

16 MR. MORRIS: Right. 

17 MR. MAURO: But there are a lot of 

18 other workers that might have been working in 

19 that area or near the area that were not 

20 checked. Now do you assume that they might 

21 have gotten exposed? 

22 MR. MORRIS: There is a good answer 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 312

1 for this. We developed a co-worker model off 

2 of that data, that in vivo dataset, and that 

3 you will find on the O: drive. 

4 MR. ROLFES: It is on the O: drive, 

5 and that is titled "The Fernald Thorium In 

6 Vivo Co-Worker Study Final Draft.." 

7 MR. MAURO: Okay. That's post-'68. 

8 Okay. 

9 MR. ROLFES: They are on March 12, 

10 2008. 

11 CHAIR CLAWSON: That would be an 

12 action item. 

13 MR. MAURO: Got it. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: I guess, again, 

15 that's the same age-old problem, but how do 

16 you determine if someone was -- if someone 

17 gets that dose assigned. 

18 MR. ROLFES: In the worst case 

19 scenario, you would assume that they were a 

20 thorium worker, and by -- 

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Based on building? 

22 MR. ROLFES: We certainly could do 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 313

1 that, if an individual said that they worked, 

2 for example, in Plant 9 and were not monitored 

3 -- well, let's keep it in the -- let's say in 

4 the more recent years there were some thorium 

5 campaigns in the pilot plant. 

6 If an individual said that they 

7 worked with thorium in the pilot plant and 

8 never had a whole body count, we can say, 

9 okay, what job category? If they were in a 

10 high potential exposure job category such as a 

11 chemical operator, we could apply, you know, 

12 the 84th or the 95th percentile or whatever as 

13 well. 

14 You can also consider an 

15 individual's external dose, the penetrating 

16 dose. Usually, those individuals have a 

17 little bit higher peak dose than standard 

18 uranium workers as well. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: That is assuming 

20 the individual didn't -- I mean, we have a lot 

21 of cases that you don't have the individual to 

22 talk to. So -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 314

1 MR. ROLFES: Right. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Then do you have -

3 - I don't know if you have a detailed 

4 employment card for this site or you would 

5 know if they went in and out of those areas, 

6 or how do you -- when you are saying worst 

7 case, I'm saying best estimate, you know. 

8 MR. ROLFES: Well, let's keep in 

9 mind -- because we are -- best estimates that 

10 we actually do, that's a very, very small 

11 population of our total claims that we can do 

12 dose reconstructions for, maybe one percent of 

13 that. 

14 For Fernald, specifically, I really 

15 don't know of any best estimates that we've 

16 ever done for Fernald. I don't know if we 

17 have completed one, and usually we make 

18 claimant-favorable assumptions in a best 

19 estimate that are still giving the benefit of 

20 the doubt to the claimants. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, if you are 

22 going to make worst case for everybody, that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 315

1 makes this go away, this discussion. 

2 MR. ROLFES: I think, as Jim had 

3 mentioned earlier -- 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: If you are only 

5 going to do it for prostate cancers, that's a 

6 different thing. 

7 MR. ROLFES: Right. For example, 

8 for a lung cancer, if we were to use even a 

9 small partial dose reconstruction, a small 

10 intake for one year, for example, at the 50th 

11 percentile could result in greater than 50 

12 percent. But in the dose reconstruction 

13 process, before we would even really consider 

14 thorium exposures, we would take a look at the 

15 bioassay data that we do have for the 

16 individual. 

17 For example, we would start the 

18 dose reconstruction for lung cancer by looking 

19 at essentially all the data that we have, and 

20 then start with the bioassay data that we do 

21 have, and complete an internal assessment 

22 using that uranium bioassay data. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 316

1 If it was not over 50 percent, then 

2 we would have to consider some of the other 

3 radionuclides to which the individual was 

4 potentially exposed, and the next one on the 

5 line would likely be the thorium issue. 

6 So we could apply a 50th percentile 

7 based on the data that we do have. We would 

8 have to examine the facts of the case in order 

9 to make an informed decision. 

10 MR. MAURO: And that is all written 

11 up in the co-worker model. In other words, is 

12 that all written up? 

13 MR. ROLFES: The thorium intake 

14 model is presented in the Fernald Thorium 

15 Intake Model here. 

16 MR. MAURO: The rationale for who 

17 you assigned what percentile to is described 

18 in the co-worker model? 

19 MR. ROLFES: Let me open it and 

20 take a look. 

21 MR. MORRIS: It's been a long time 

22 since they wrote that. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 317

1 MR. MAURO: I realize you didn't 

2 memorize all 300 procedures. 

3 MR. ROLFES: This is from January 

4 8, 2008, the date that we have on it. Let's 

5 see. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's awfully 

7 recent. It should be right there. 

8 MR. ROLFES: Sorry. Sorry. Let's 

9 see, it's the thorium in vivo co-worker study 

10 for Fernald, and it's 19 pages. We go through 

11 a little bit of the decay of thorium, the 

12 selection, statistical description of the 

13 data. 

14 MR. NETON: I guess it probably 

15 doesn't say. 

16 MR. ROLFES: It might just call out 

17 what the specific intakes are based on the 

18 matrix. 

19 MR. MAURO: Once you decide who you 

20 want to give it to. That's the big ticket 

21 item. 

22 MR. NETON: Well, that's the TIB 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 318

1 that I just talked about earlier that refers 

2 to what job categories are given what level of 

3 exposure based on administrative, clerical -- 

4 MR. MAURO: That's an overarching 

5 philosophy. 

6 MS. BALDRIDGE: Can I ask a 

7 question here? When you are talking about 

8 clerical or any of those people that were 

9 considered working in offices, where did the 

10 draftsperson, the draftsman or an engineer 

11 fall into, what category? 

12 MR. NETON: It depends on where 

13 they worked. I mean, what they did. A 

14 draftsman who worked only in the non-process 

15 area would fall in the ambient exposure 

16 category. 

17 MS. BALDRIDGE: How do you know 

18 they worked in a non-exposure area? 

19 MR. NETON: If you don't, then they 

20 would be given the benefit of the doubt and 

21 could receive up to the 50th percentile of the 

22 worker exposed. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 319

1 MS. BALDRIDGE: Especially based on 

2 the Fernald documents that state design 

3 problems, you know -- 

4 MR. NETON: Well, when it is not 

5 known -- 

6 MS. BALDRIDGE: -- maybe breaking 

7 down, where engineers had to go in and try to 

8 solve design problems to make a safer 

9 environment, they were at risk by the very 

10 exposure that -- 

11 MR. NETON: Well, when it is not 

12 known to any certainty, they would be given 

13 the 50th percentile of the co-worker's doses, 

14 but for uranium exposures, typically, most 

15 people have at least one bioassay sample a 

16 year, because for many years it was part of 

17 the annual physical, for uranium. 

18 Now when you get in the other 

19 scenario, the thorium and radon, it's a little 

20 different issue, but when there is a benefit 

21 to conducting that procedure, that the 50th 

22 percentile would be the exposure. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 320

1 Then for those who were really 

2 hands-on workers working with material, 

3 grinding, lathing and processing, then those 

4 would be given a higher level exposure than 

5 that. 

6 MS. BALDRIDGE: You know, as I look 

7 at the lists that I've seen in some of the 

8 documentation already, it was like inspectors 

9 were at the bottom of the list. They were 

10 expected to have the least exposure when some 

11 of the processes involved taking chemical 

12 samples, core specimens of slugs. They were 

13 working on the machines to do some of this 

14 stuff. To put them not off, just counting how 

15 many cartons were leaving or how many boxes 

16 were leaving, and there's other examples. 

17 When you list it as a category and 

18 then you are talking about assigning -- 

19 MR. ROLFES: Those are guidelines, 

20 not absolutes, for those procedures. They are 

21 a starting point, but you have to look at the 

22 entire file and look at the individual and the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 321

1 interviews and the bioassay samples that were 

2 taken and the work areas that were frequented 

3 based on the job categories. 

4 There's a lot that goes into this 

5 other than just that starting point. 

6 CHAIR CLAWSON: Okay. Go on. 

7 MR. MAURO: We are almost through 

8 the fourth out of five. 

9 The last part of the chest count 

10 issue and thorium issue has to do with -- I'll 

11 read the statement, the improper correlation 

12 of the chest count at the MIVRML, whatever 

13 that stands for -- I assume that's the chest 

14 count, thorium lung count -- with the air 

15 sampling data. 

16 Now the issue goes toward -- it 

17 sounds like you've got data from chest counts, 

18 and you also have data from the derived daily 

19 weighted exposure together, which raises an 

20 interesting situation. 

21 You've got two separate sources, 

22 two different approaches post-1968. Now when 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 322

1 you discussed at the last time, and we asked, 

2 well, which one are you going to use, the 

3 answer was, well, when we have the chest count 

4 data, we use that, which, of course, is in 

5 accord with the overall hierarchy of data. 

6 What came to mind, though, was what 

7 happens -- well, you are in a unique situation 

8 now. You could actually validate your derived 

9 -- the daily weighted exposure. In other 

10 words, you are going to be using the daily 

11 weighted exposure pre-'68 as your method for 

12 reconstructing internal doses of thorium, 

13 which -- and, you know, you are going to 

14 demonstrate to us how you do it and all the 

15 data, and that is something in the future you 

16 can put on the O: drive. 

17 Something we didn't talk about was, 

18 when you -- post-'68 apparently you need them 

19 both, and one way to confirm that you could 

20 trust the daily weighted exposure is to show 

21 that it works well post-'68. 

22 MR. MORRIS: One thing you could 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 323

1 say about that is we already know that the 

2 daily weighted exposures were significantly 

3 overestimates of the true exposure. 

4 CHAIR CLAWSON: Compared with the 

5 lung data. 

6 MR. MAURO: Is that right? 

7 MR. MORRIS: We already know that, 

8 because we already know that -- 

9 MR. MAURO: That's important. 

10 MR. MORRIS: -- there was never a 

11 counting for respiratory protection daily 

12 weighted exposure measurements, and we know 

13 that people did wear respirators. So just 

14 that fact alone would skew it. 

15 MR. MAURO: That's where I'm 

16 heading with this. You see, the day is going 

17 to come when we are going to be looking real 

18 hard at the DWE data, and that is going to be 

19 a critical factor in terms of the SEC related 

20 issues. Can you reconstruct now? 

21 MR. NETON: There is also very good 

22 evidence -- I think it has been published -- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 324

1 that the air concentration data doesn't match 

2 very well, because it is not particle size 

3 selective either. I mean, when you do an air 

4 sample, you suck in everything from boulders 

5 down to ultra-fine aerosols. 

6 Somebody actually did a study at 

7 Fernald where they looked at -- you know, 

8 cascade of macro studies, and you 

9 significantly overestimate exposures using the 

10 entire air sample. 

11 MR. MAURO: If that can be part of 

12 the package in terms of not only do you 

13 demonstrate that here is all the data we have 

14 -- in other words, here is all the data we 

15 have pre-'68. In other words, when you do the 

16 1955, 1966 sample for every building and you 

17 show you have an abundance of data with which 

18 to construct -- do dose reconstruction and 

19 construct a co-worker model for thorium 

20 intake, you also could demonstrate that, and 

21 we know that when we do it this way, it is 

22 claimant favorable, because it usually always 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 325

1 results in overestimate. 

2 The reason we can say that is for 

3 the reasons you just gave. 

4 MR. NETON: Right. 

5 MR. MAURO: That would -- I just 

6 messed up. I just went too far. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: It's getting late 

8 in the day, and I can't reach you to kick you. 

9 MR. MAURO: I'm sorry. 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: There's other 

11 factors. I don't disagree with what Jim said. 

12 The other factor that I looked at when we 

13 first discussed that study was do you have 

14 daily weighted averages, and in some cases for 

15 some job titles I saw, it was like a value of 

16 five in 4,000, and it was averaged to about 

17 2,000, and that's the value that you are 

18 plotting. 

19 So there's some -- I want to see 

20 what is happening with this data. 

21 MR. NETON: I think you will be 

22 happy with that, because I reviewed that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 326

1 dataset, and it would go into the higher end. 

2 We're not taking averages. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Anyway, 

4 until we see this -- 

5 MR. MAURO: I got carried away. 

6 MR. NETON: A guy may have only 

7 worked that job -- you don't know how many 

8 days the guy worked that job, too. I mean, 

9 that's for a guy full time working that job 

10 one day a week, two days a week, five days? 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I also don't 

12 know how often that -- was that one day for 

13 the year, the sampling of it? I don't know. 

14 MR. MORRIS: For highly exposed 

15 jobs, they sampled, you know, a few times 

16 during the year. That was the typical -- 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON; I haven't looked 

18 at it. So you know more than I do, but I am 

19 just saying let's wait until we see it. 

20 MR. MORRIS: In fact, if you ever 

21 took an industrial hygiene class and the 

22 theory of how you do industrial hygiene 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 327

1 sampling was presented to you, this is how 

2 they did it. They really did it that way, and 

3 you would find that there was a journal of who 

4 did what, how many minutes they spent on that, 

5 how many minutes they spent on this, how long 

6 they were at work. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, I don't 

8 disagree with it for that individual. It's a 

9 pretty good assessment. 

10 MR. MORRIS: It's not for the 

11 individual. It's for the work, the work task. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Anyway, there is 

13 some interpretation there, because I know I 

14 have done some of these, and they are not 

15 invasive, and they are also -- you know, when 

16 you are looking over the shoulder of these 

17 people doing this, you are not sure you are 

18 getting it the way all of the work is always 

19 done, as they tell you later, well, we did it 

20 that way when everybody was watching us. 

21 MR. KATZ: Arjun, you had wanted to 

22 speak. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 328

1 MR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. Sorry, I 

2 can't hear everybody. So I don't know when 

3 exactly to speak. Thank you, Ted. 

4 I have a question about the in vivo 

5 counter, the specific measurements you get out 

6 of it. I think you were measuring titanium 

7 and lead-212. But that lead-212, is a product 

8 of control rods, and so I am wondering how you 

9 actually reflect that lead-212 back into 

10 thoron-232 when you don't know how much thoron 

11 has actually escaped. 

12 In different circumstances, the re13 drumming may be a different situation than in 

14 processing. 

15 MR. NETON; I think, Arjun, this 

16 is something that we need to go back and look 

17 at. I don't remember the algorithm that was 

18 exactly used, but I think it was a combination 

19 of actinium and a lead-212 somehow, and I have 

20 forgotten exactly how that was derived and 

21 what they did with it. But you're right. 

22 Thoron gas does escape from the body to some 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 329

1 degree, although albeit not a lot, because 

2 it's got a 55-second half-life. 

3 MR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, but the thing 

4 that concerns me is the significant weight of 

5 that 212 -- radiological or gamma, and the 

6 emission characteristics and, you know, I 

7 don't know all the radiochemistry on the top 

8 of my head. 

9 MR. NETON: Well, but there have 

10 been papers published on this issue, like how 

11 representative lead-212 as a measurement of 

12 thorium in the lung. 

13 MR. MAKHIJANI: I am just thinking 

14 that the thing that needs to be clarified in 

15 this process is at what point does it affect 

16 your measurement and your attribution. 

17 MR. BEHLING: Can I interject here? 

18 MR. MAKHIJANI: A lot of negative 

19 measurement and a lot of measurements that 

20 seem to be below some level of detection or 

21 very low, a negative number, and that kind of 

22 concerns me. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 330

1 MR. BEHLING: Arjun, can I 

2 interject, because you raised that question 

3 with me earlier. Whenever you -- obviously, 

4 the in vivo measurement chest counting tried 

5 to test both the activity associated with 

6 actinium-228 as well as with lead-212, and if 

7 you have -- you always have a pretty good 

8 understanding of what the thorium-228 is, 

9 because it is very closely always in 

10 equilibrium with lead-212, because the 

11 intervening daughters are very short-lived. 

12 If you start out with a pure sample 

13 of purified thorium at time zero, you can 

14 reasonably assure yourself that the thorium15 232 and 228 are in equilibrium. However, you 

16 won't know that, because the actinium-228 is 

17 actually going to be zero, because it is a 

18 very short-lived daughter of radium-228, which 

19 has been chemically removed. 

20 So at times zero the only real 

21 measurement you have -- if you know for a fact 

22 you are dealing with a very, very fresh sample 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 331

1 and the only measurement you are going to get 

2 out of that is lead-212, because you can 

3 reasonably conclude that within days of 

4 thorium extraction that the lead-212 is once 

5 again in equilibrium with the thorium-228. 

6 What you don't know is if thorium7 228 is in equilibrium with thorium-232. So 

8 this is one of the handicaps. And of course, 

9 as time goes by, you will, obviously, have an 

10 in-growth of radium-228, which is the first 

11 daughter decay product of thorium-232, but you 

12 will not have a full equilibrium of the 

13 radionuclides you are trying to measure, 228, 

14 for about 30 years. 

15 So there is always this disconnect 

16 between thorium -- the lead-212 and actinium17 228, because they have very different 

18 relationships to their parent, which is what 

19 you are trying to measure. 

20 At the worst condition, is 

21 approximately three or four years after 

22 extraction where you bottom out in terms of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 332

1 understanding what the relationships are, and 

2 you could be off by as much as 2.3 or 2.4, and 

3 I think John mentioned that number, in 

4 underestimating your actual body burden. 

5 That's the worst it can ever happen. 

6 MR. NETON: But, Hans, I think that 

7 is what that algorithm attempted to do, was -- 

8 you know, if you start seeing actinium-228, 

9 you know that you are dealing with an aged 

10 sample. 

11 MR. BEHLING: Yes, exactly. 

12 MR. NETON: And then you can 

13 correct for that, and you are right. The 

14 worst case without any correction for actinium 

15 ingrowth would be, you know, 2.3 or 2.4 or 

16 something like that. This is an issue we've 

17 just -- we talked about earlier, I think. 

18 MR. BEHLING: Yes, we did. 

19 MR. MAKHIJANI: The point I was 

20 trying to make was somewhat different. 

21 MR. NETON: Yes, I know. You are 

22 talking about the escape of thoron gas from 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 333

1 the body, but I think that that is -- well, I 

2 could point to some papers that have 

3 investigated this, and we can shore that up a 

4 little bit. 

5 MR. MAKHIJANI: I am just wondering 

6 how that would take into account, because 

7 there are a lot of different thorium 

8 processes, and people's thoron must be very 

9 different in different circumstances. 

10 MR. NETON: Correct. 

11 MR. MAKHIJANI: In your sample, 

12 they say, you know, five or ten years old. It 

13 may not have a lot of -- you know, five years 

14 old, you now have a lot of actinium, and you 

15 may not have much lead-212. So I just am 

16 wondering as to -- well, I think we need to 

17 verify -- 

18 MR. NETON; Yes. We can work on 

19 that. 

20 MR. MAKHIJANI: Great. Thank you. 

21 MR. MAURO: This is just a matter 

22 of housekeeping. We actually had an issue 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 334

1 number 4.4-5. It is the last of the 4.4 

2 series. That had to do with OTIB-0002. 

3 At the time of our review of the 

4 site profile and the evaluation report, I 

5 believe that -- this was not discussed at the 

6 last meeting. It was discussed at the October 

7 24, 2007, meeting, and it had to do with under 

8 what circumstances is OTIB-0002 at play. 

9 I think that the events have 

10 overcome us, and that is no longer an issue. 

11 I don't think OTIB-0002 is used in any 

12 respect. This is just bounding analysis. 

13 I think at one time this default 

14 intake that is embedded in OTIB-0002 was a way 

15 that you would bound -- place an upper bound 

16 on some internal exposures that may not have 

17 been bounded for some of the exposure 

18 experience at Fernald. That was some of our 

19 concerns. But I don't think that has anymore 

20 play. 

21 In other words, I don't think you 

22 are using OTIB-0002 for any of the dose 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 335

1 reconstruction at Fernald any longer, and I 

2 just wanted to confirm that, and we could then 

3 close this particular item out. 

4 MR. NETON: Mark is more familiar 

5 with the day to day dose reconstruction, but I 

6 don't think we would use 0002. 

7 MR. ROLFES: You know, there may 

8 have been some revisions. You know, if we 

9 issued a program evaluation report for Fernald 

10 and we had basically reviewed the dose 

11 reconstruction -- I couldn't really answer 

12 directly. 

13 I don't recall off the top of my 

14 head. We could find out. 

15 MR. NETON: We could take that as 

16 an action item and verify. 

17 MR. MAURO: That was your last 

18 action item. In fact, at the end of the 

19 meeting a year ago, it said: NIOSH response: 

20 A formal PER is performed for previously 

21 denied claims -- if you denied a claim based 

22 on this 0002. This would be done after the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 336

1 site profile revisions have occurred. 

2 So apparently, as I understand it, 

3 this comes right out of the matrix after we 

4 had a meeting a year ago. 

5 MR. NETON: We need to look at 

6 that, because I am not aware -- I'm sorry. 

7 MS. BALDRIDGE: I think that 

8 applies to my father's claim, because I was 

9 challenging the use of OTIB-0002, which is 

10 time sensitive, and the revision -- or the 

11 original OTIB-0002 had a time restrictive 

12 application that you had to have been hired in 

13 1969 or later. 

14 OTIB-0002 was applied to my father, 

15 who retired in 1964. The use of that also did 

16 not dose him for the uranium hexafluoride, and 

17 did not take into account the thorium that we 

18 later discovered in Plant 6. 

19 So my question to Mark at the time 

20 was: If this document is time restrictive, 

21 how do you justify using it to do a dose 

22 reconstruction for someone who doesn't fall 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 337

1 under the limitation parameters of the 

2 document, and he told me sometimes it is 

3 necessary to do dose reconstruction. 

4 I thought, well, I thought the law 

5 had the stipulation that if NIOSH didn't have 

6 the data, the information that they needed, 

7 then it was to be referred to the Department 

8 of Labor who would, in fact, then tell you to 

9 go ahead and apply for an individual SEC based 

10 on the fact that there was no documentation. 

11 MR. ROLFES: I think the concern 

12 was that, because the TIB 2 at the time had a 

13 restriction in there that limited its usage to 

14 1970 forward -- I think we've revised that to 

15 say that that can be used for earlier time 

16 periods with specific justification for a 

17 claim. 

18 MS. BALDRIDGE: It was revised, but 

19 the document that was used for my father's 

20 dose reconstruction was not the revision. It 

21 was the original that still contained the time 

22 restriction. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 338

1 MR. ROLFES: I don't want to speak 

2 about your claim, but -- 

3 MS. BALDRIDGE: Since OTIB-0002 

4 came up, that's why. 

5 MR. ROLFES: Okay. As we 

6 indicated, though, it has been revised to 

7 basically explain that it can be used with 

8 specific justification on a case by case 

9 basis. I believe that is documented in there. 

10 Is that correct, Jim? 

11 MR. NETON: I don't remember now. 

12 I can't recall, but I'm concerned about the 

13 PER that was talked about, because I don't 

14 recall us doing a PER for 0002. 

15 MR. ROLFES: What I was going to 

16 explain is that, if we had a dose 

17 reconstruction that was completed using TIB 2 

18 and we had a program evaluation report that 

19 was issued, we wouldn't change the 

20 methodology. We would likely use TIB 2 once 

21 again, if we had to reevaluate the claim. But 

22 I'm not sure of that. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 339

1 MR. MAURO: Maybe I can help a 

2 little bit. It was my understanding that TIB 

3 2 was used for denials. In other words, it 

4 was, across the board -- 

5 MR. NETON: Overestimate. 

6 MR. MAURO: -- overestimate, just 

7 to put the value, internal dose, now. And 

8 then subsequent to that, we did some reviews 

9 of TIB 2 in the default set of radionuclides 

10 and intakes embedded in it, and it was our 

11 finding that, when it comes to Fernald, that 

12 may not be bounding.. 

13 MR. NETON: Yes, and I think what 

14 would happen was, if we did a review of a 

15 case, and it came back through, it would not 

16 be TIB 2, because that was written at a time 

17 probably when the site profile for Fernald had 

18 not been completed or something of that 

19 nature; because if there is a site profile and 

20 there are prescribed approaches to doing dose 

21 reconstructions, we would always default to 

22 the site profile. But early on, when we were 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 340

1 doing dose reconstructions, we believed that 

2 you could deny cases using the TIB 2, because 

3 it was bounding. Apparently SC&A had some 

4 issues with some of the -- 

5 MR. MAURO: Some concerns, right. 

6 MR. NETON: -- some of the 

7 approaches that we used. But I'm not sure 

8 where we are at with that, other than the fact 

9 that I don't think TIB 2 would be used 

10 currently. 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: I guess, if NIOSH 

12 ended up agreeing with SC&A that it is not 

13 bounding for Fernald, that TIB 2 is not then a 

14 PER, that would be done. 

15 MR. NETON: Yes, that would be the 

16 case, but see, I don't know that we -- 

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I don't think 

18 we are that point. 

19 MR. MAURO: We have just left it 

20 off, the same place we left it off a year ago. 

21 MR. NETON: Have we responded to 

22 the TIB 2 review yet or is that still in the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 341

1 Procedures Group process? I guess that is the 

2 question. I don't know where we are with the 

3 review of TIB 2. 

4 MR. MAURO: I don't know. 

5 MR. NETON: We would have to look 

6 at that. And you're right. If the Procedures 

7 Review Group made a determination, we agree 

8 that TIB 2 is inappropriate for certain cases 

9 at Fernald, then a PER would be issued. We 

10 would go back and, more than likely, it would 

11 be not -- all those cases -- 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't think the 

13 Procedures Review Work Group would look at 

14 specific sites. Wouldn't that be deferred to 

15 this group to see if Fernald -- 

16 MR. NETON; Yes, but where did the 

17 analysis of TIB 2 against Fernald cases come 

18 from? 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think it came up 

20 here, didn't it? 

21 MR. MAURO: Yes, we have this as a 

22 finding. We can go back; we could find the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 342

1 history of it. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: And I think this 

3 is something that we got to say, you know, 

4 does NIOSH agree with SC&A's finding or no. 

5 MR. MAURO: And we have not 

6 responded to that, apparently. 

7 MR. ROLFES: I am trying to think 

8 about some of the claims process. You know, 

9 for example, if we have an individual who has 

10 bioassay data, and that individual's bioassay 

11 data are largely unremarkable, has no greater 

12 than the detection limit results, TIB 2 would 

13 be a bounding approach, and that approach 

14 would typically be used for a non-metabolic 

15 organ -- for cancer of a non-metabolic organ, 

16 for prostate cancer. 

17 MR. NETON: I am not sure about the 

18 nuclide mix. I think we need to go back and 

19 revisit it. 

20 MR. MAURO: Well, fission products. 

21 Reactor mix, you name it. 

22 MR. NETON: I thought it was 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 343

1 uranium. 

2 MR. MAURO: There were two mixes. 

3 There are two mixes, yes. 

4 MR. NETON: But I am not certain 

5 whether it incorporated some of the issues 

6 that we are talking about today, like the 

7 thorium and then the radon and that sort of 

8 thing. We need to go back and read it. Sorry 

9 for our response. 

10 MR. MAURO: We are on the last 

11 finding, 5, dealing with external dosimetry. 

12 Let me see where we are on this. Give me a 

13 second. I didn't think we would get this far. 

14 In fact, from the -- 

15 MR. MAKHIJANI: John, did you deal 

16 with the Parker Report? 

17 MR. MAURO: Oh, yes, thank you. 

18 Thank you. There are a number of findings on 

19 what I call the external dosimetry, 4.5-1 

20 through 4.5-5. 

21 The first one has to do with 

22 quality assurance. Namely, we had a finding 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 344

1 that questioned the program -- the quality 

2 assurance of the program, the training of the 

3 workers in terms of NIOSH being in a position 

4 to put out quality data related to externa 

5 dosimetry. 

6 The response at the time by NIOSH 

7 was, well, Herb Parker put a report out that 

8 demonstrates that the quality data is okay. 

9 Hans, in fact, you may want to take it from 

10 here. Hans faxed me last night the Parker 

11 report, and I have it here with me. 

12 I have to say that it doesn't seem 

13 to be fully responsive to our concerns. Hans, 

14 maybe you want to just summarize, because I 

15 read it last night quickly. Would you mind 

16 just summarizing why there is some residual 

17 concern? 

18 MR. BEHLING: I guess the most 

19 important issue here is that the Parker report 

20 is dated 1945. 

21 MR. MAURO: Yes. 

22 MR. BEHLING: And it really has 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 345

1 three sets of dosimeters that were being 

2 evaluated for three different laboratories. 

3 To some extent, they really assessed the 

4 method by which these dosimeters were 

5 irradiated against a known exposure dose and 

6 then, obviously, processed and assessed for 

7 how was the response compared to the known 

8 exposure. 

9 While there were differences, they 

10 seemed feasible. I just don't know how the 

11 Parker report really addresses the issues that 

12 were raised in Section -- in finding 4.5-1 

13 which talks about the fact that there were no 

14 standard operating procedures. The individual 

15 who processed these dosimeters was a person 

16 who had no really formal training or 

17 qualification. 

18 There were issues associated with 

19 the handling of dosimeters and even 

20 maintaining dosimeters. In some instances, 

21 they were left in cars which were overheating 

22 in summer months and so forth. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 346

1 Basically, what I was raising is 

2 the question that we don't have really quality 

3 assurance data that says this is the protocols 

4 that were used. 

5 In today's world, we would have 

6 qualifications regarding the persons doing the 

7 work, the methods used to process the doses, 

8 the films, in terms of developing the film, 

9 the use of control badges which my write-up 

10 says they didn't use control badges to assure 

11 that each time when the batch, film badges, 

12 were issued and then returned that they were 

13 essentially done correctly. 

14 It was just basically things that, 

15 I guess, in a 1980 assessment were identified 

16 as efficiencies, and that is where I raised 

17 it, and again in light of the Parker report, I 

18 don't see anything here that I consider 

19 relevant in addressing those issues. 

20 MR. ROLFES: All right. I am 

21 searching for some information. I know we 

22 have addressed this previously, but I will 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 347

1 have to take a minute to see what we provided 

2 in response to this. 

3 MR. BEHLING: And let me -- while 

4 you are looking, Mark, let me just make a 

5 couple of comments. 

6 Oftentimes the justification saying 

7 things are okay just based on the use of a 

8 specific film dosimeter, that they have used a 

9 Dupont 508 film, etcetera, but that is really 

10 not necessary. The only criterion for judging 

11 the performance of a dosimeter in many 

12 instances, if you are talking about a film 

13 dosimeter program that was handled in-house, 

14 the real critical issues that have to be 

15 addressed is what were the doses for radiation 

16 exposures in developing a dose response curve? 

17 Was that properly done? Were there specific 

18 procedures in place regarding how the film was 

19 developed; that is, the chemical methods for 

20 developing the time, the solutions, the 

21 temperature of the solutions, etcetera, 

22 etcetera. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 348

1 Those are other critical variables 

2 that go above and beyond the type of film that 

3 was used in that timeframe. 

4 MR. NETON: And I would say that we 

5 must have some information on this. This is 

6 Jim. I have not looked at this in much 

7 detail, but I know that they had calibration 

8 curves of all those films going way back, but 

9 we will have to look -- rely on Mark. 

10 MR. ROLFES: Yes, I will have to 

11 take a look back. 

12 MR. NETON: I agree with you, it is 

13 more than just what dosimeter was used. But I 

14 know -- I recall -- I think those data still 

15 are there. I mean the actual pieces, the 

16 calibrations, film and the stuff, were still 

17 available a long, long time ago. 

18 MR. BEHLING: Yes. If you look at 

19 the finding 4.5-1 in my report, these 

20 quotations come out of an assessment fact 

21 sheet that was dated September 11, 1981. So 

22 as late as '81, obviously, they were still 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 349

1 suffering from certain deficiencies regarding 

2 personal film dosimetry programs. 

3 MR. NETON: I need to go back and 

4 refresh my memory of what was said there, 

5 because I remember these comments now. These 

6 are actually site profile comments, I think, 

7 from a long time ago. 

8 MR. MAURO: They may be carried 

9 over. 

10 MR. NETON: I think that is 

11 reasonable. 

12 MR. MAURO: Right. 

13 MR. NETON: I'm just stretching to 

14 try to remember. We spent so much time on 

15 internal that I've forgotten what we've done 

16 in the externa area to address those issues. 

17 We may have to get back to you on this. 

18 MR. ROLFES: The only thing I am 

19 seeing that jumps out at me immediately is the 

20 FMPC external dosimetry program quality 

21 assurance manual that was placed onto the O: 

22 drive August of 2007, and let's see, it was 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 350

1 during the Westinghouse Materials company 

2 years, roughly 41 pages. There is some 

3 description of the luminescent dosimeters that 

4 were issued at Fernald. 

5 MR. NETON: That is later. 

6 MR. ROLFES: Right. Right. I do 

7 see the Herb Parker analysis that is out here. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: The Parker analysis 

9 probably precedes any commercial film badge 

10 work. They had to be doing in-house stuff or 

11 using Oak Ridge's system or something. 

12 What you would be looking for, I 

13 guess, would just be some -- I mean, there 

14 were no national intercomparisons or anything, 

15 as far as I know. So you would be looking for 

16 what standards did they use to calibrate and 

17 the variables that Hans mentioned, which can 

18 affect the darkening of the film, and then the 

19 development process. 

20 As far as qualified people, 

21 probably all the lines probably were returning 

22 people as they were. Forty-five would have 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 351

1 been just as the war ended, and in the first 

2 couple of years of that. 

3 MR. NETON: Fernald didn't start 

4 until '52. I think the Parker report was kind 

5 of going to what Hans said, that eliminate the 

6 dosimetry stuff. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, yes. Okay. 

8 MR. NETON: But the actual 

9 processing -- and you're right. In the 1950s 

10 there were no standard operating procedures 

11 like we would consider today that are 

12 controlled and reviewed and that sort of 

13 thing. But I recall us pulling out at one 

14 point descriptions of what was done, and we 

15 need to piece that back together again, I 

16 think. 

17 MR. ROLFES: I am looking through 

18 what I've got. I'm not seeing anything. We 

19 will take a look back and see what else we 

20 have received from our data captures that 

21 we've done since the SEC evaluation and make 

22 those available to the Advisory Board Working 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 352

1 Group as well. 

2 MR. MAURO: If I may move on, issue 

3 number 5-2 has to do with something we have 

4 not discussed since a year ago. We did not 

5 discuss this matter in the March 2008 meeting. 

6 It has to do with doses to extremities. 

7 Now basically, we have some tables 

8 here on how was that monitored. Now let me 

9 preface this. Hans pointed this out to me 

10 last night. 

11 I don't know if there's too many 

12 people that are claimants that have cancer of 

13 the hands or fingers. So maybe this is not -- 

14 I don't know the degree to which it would be 

15 considered an important SEC issue. But the 

16 data we do have -- and I will hand this out, 

17 not PA cleared -- is basically a summary of 

18 the number of individuals that had extremity 

19 monitoring as a function of the year. 

20 As can be seen, it was not until 

21 the 1980s when there are -- that people really 

22 started to have extremity monitoring. The 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 353

1 early years are very limited. 

2 The importance of this, you know, I 

3 will leave it into the hands of the work 

4 group. The reality is that's the data as best 

5 we can capture it, and it definitely shows 

6 that the number of -- the amount of extremity 

7 monitoring was extremely limited in the early 

8 years. 

9 MR. BEHLING: And then let me also 

10 add to that, in looking at this data that you 

11 probably don't have access to, but I have 

12 given it to John and he may show it to you on 

13 a personal level, because it does contain 

14 names of individuals. So we are not 

15 privileged to hand it out. But the doses in 

16 the early years, beginning in the very early 

17 years, for those people who were monitored was 

18 quite substantial. 

19 We have doses, yearly doses, up to 

20 33 rads, as well as high as even 55 in one 

21 case, 63 in one case, to extremities. So the 

22 doses were very, very high, and the number of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 354

1 personnel who were monitored for extremity 

2 exposures in the early years was very, very 

3 marginal. 

4 You can see the rise, the dramatic 

5 rise, in numbers from the handout that John 

6 gave you. So the question that was raised in 

7 my finding is that -- and I back that up by a 

8 couple of in-house memoranda that talked about 

9 the need for further monitoring among people 

10 who were currently not monitored, and that was 

11 the genesis of the finding, that according to 

12 some of the interoffice memos that were cited 

13 in my report, there were substantial extremity 

14 doses among a handful of people who were 

15 monitored, but it was also a matter of fact 

16 that there were other people who had finger 

17 exposures or likely finger exposures who were 

18 not monitored. 

19 I think this table demonstrates the 

20 limited number of personnel monitored during 

21 the early years when, in fact, the exposures 

22 to extremities were substantial. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 355

1 MR. NETON: I agree with you, 

2 Hans. It seems like it would be very 

3 straightforward to develop some sort of a 

4 ratio of shallow dose to extremity dose, you 

5 know, the beta dose. There's ratios that can 

6 be developed based on the monitoring data we 

7 have. 

8 MR. BEHLING: In fact, that ratio 

9 is given in my write-up. In fact, they made 

10 comments regarding that ratio of external 

11 whole body. Obviously, your chest badge will 

12 pick up also a skin dose and, of course, that 

13 can be compared to perhaps the wrist badge 

14 that was worn by those individuals. 

15 So you can, obviously, draw some 

16 correlation. 

17 MR. NETON: Yes, you can draw a 

18 correlation, and then you would only assign 

19 that dose to people that -- you know, if you 

20 had a substantial shallow dose to the chest 

21 badge, then you could apply the ratio to the 

22 extremity dose. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 356

1 So I think this is what John might 

2 call a tractable problem. 

3 MR. BEHLING: And I would recommend 

4 using the chest badge beta dose and use that 

5 as a way of correlating the potential exposure 

6 for extremity dose. 

7 MR. NETON: I agree with you. 

8 Well, that is assuming we can get through this 

9 QA issue that we were just talking about 10 

10 minutes ago, though. 

11 MR. MAURO: The next item I have 

12 here -- and I am going to B- again, I've got 

13 to punt to Hans. It has to do -- and I'm not 

14 sure if this is -- it has to do with 

15 unmonitored shallow and deep dose resulting 

16 from skin/clothing contamination. 

17 This subject was discussed a year 

18 ago, the 10/24/07 meeting, and the work group 

19 basically asked NIOSH to examine whether -- in 

20 other words, how to deal with the fact that 

21 there might be clothing contamination, and, as 

22 a result of that contamination there is a beta 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 357

1 dose associated with that, and that that may 

2 need to be taken into consideration. That is 

3 the fact that people are wearing contaminated 

4 clothing. 

5 Then the work group, based on that 

6 concern, which is described in our report -- 

7 and Hans, if you would like to describe it 

8 further, but that there may be some need to -- 

9 the work group said NIOSH will examine whether 

10 an adjustment is necessary. 

11 MR. BEHLING: If I can just make a 

12 comment again. If you do have those who have 

13 access to the original review of the SEC 

14 petition report that I wrote, finding 4.5-3 

15 pretty much gives you a background against 

16 which this issue was raised. 

17 That is, apparently as of even 1985 

18 the Fernald facility did not really monitor 

19 people for skin contamination, clothing 

20 contamination, by having portal monitors, as 

21 you would in today's world. 

22 So people may have been 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 358

1 significantly contaminated, going home with 

2 that contamination, with the exception of some 

3 people who were, I guess, expected to shower 

4 at the end of the shift. Others were, 

5 obviously, not. 

6 So the issue of skin contamination 

7 is a significant potential for large doses, 

8 given what we already talked about, that 

9 involves extremity skin exposures. But in 

10 addition to those doses, you may have had skin 

11 contamination that would have continued to 

12 expose an individual for, obviously, longer 

13 periods of time other than the dosimeters that 

14 you wear would indicate. 

15 That is, if you are not one of 

16 these people who thoroughly scrubs your scalp 

17 every day by washing your hair or necessarily 

18 taking a bath every day, you may have long 

19 time skin exposures associated with 

20 contamination, skin contamination, and/or 

21 clothing contamination, clothing worn for days 

22 on end, possibly. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 359

1 It is just an issue that I raised 

2 here, and I'm not sure I know how to go about 

3 coming up with an answer. But you may have 

4 looked into it, and you may have some 

5 comments. 

6 MR. ROLFES: Hans, this is Mark 

7 Rolfes, and I think we addressed this and a 

8 couple of the previous issues in our previous 

9 working group meetings. 

10 To the best of my recollection, we 

11 came into this meeting with one action item, 

12 to provide our thorium intake model to the 

13 Advisory Board working group. 

14 I would like to take a look back at 

15 the transcripts or if someone else would like 

16 to take a look back at the transcripts to see 

17 what we said back then. 

18 I have been looking through the 

19 data that we have provided on the O: Drive, 

20 and there is a procedures folder, an FMPC 

21 Procedures Folder, reference ID 33975. 

22 Looking through the table of contents, there 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 360

1 is a procedure for writing procedures for the 

2 industrial hygiene and radiation department. 

3 I don't need to go through the 

4 entire list in detail, but I want to point out 

5 some of the important things that I see 

6 looking through the table of contents. 

7 There is some information on the 

8 special operating procedures -- standard 

9 operating procedure for the issuance of 

10 equipment and material pass, SOP for 

11 conducting ground contamination surveys or 

12 issuance of notice of contamination source, 

13 guides for radiation monitoring, film badges, 

14 dosimeters, and pocket chambers, SOP for 

15 investigation of possible radiation exposures, 

16 SOP for the use of the radiation monitoring 

17 record, procedures for the safe use and 

18 control of radioactive sources. 

19 Like I said, I don't want to go 

20 through all of these, but there's roughly 113 

21 pages of industrial hygiene and radiation 

22 department SOPs and procedures that I think 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 361

1 will address some of the concerns that we 

2 have. 

3 MR. BEHLING: When was that 

4 procedure dated? 

5 MR. ROLFES: Let me get up to the 

6 top page here. There are several revisions of 

7 this document. There is Revision 1.3, 1.12, 

8 1.13, 2.5, 2.16. Let's see. It looks like 

9 there's, well, several major revisions. I'll 

10 see what the date on this one is. 

11 I have a letter dated June 25, 1965 

12 for the all industrial hygiene and radiation 

13 department members: AThe attached procedure 

14 manual Number 10 is being sent to you for your 

15 use. As changes are made or additional 

16 procedures formulated, this material will be 

17 given to you for placement in your manual. 

18 Information contained in the manual is not 

19 cleared for publication. The manual is to 

20 remain the property of National Lead Company 

21 of Ohio and is to be surrendered upon 

22 termination or transfer.@ 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 362

1 So this one was from 1965. Let me 

2 see if I can find a version number on here. 

3 Many of the pieces of data that we are 

4 discussing now, I believe, will be addressed 

5 or at least suspect they are discussed in this 

6 manual, without reading the entire manual. 

7 I think maybe that might be a good 

8 place for us to start with reviewing, as well 

9 as the other procedures that are within this 

10 folder, to see if the data that I thought we 

11 had addressed previously is actually addressed 

12 in this folder. 

13 MR. MAURO: Okay. 

14 MR. MORRIS; I found another 

15 informative item on this SRDB that you might 

16 want to take a look at. it is reference ID 

17 3173, Personnel Monitoring Film Badges. In it 

18 you will find a record of just, like, one 

19 week's worth of data. Maybe it's a month's 

20 worth, I'm not sure, and it has contact data 

21 measurements, calibration films contact data 

22 exposures for different time frames, similarly 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 363

1 for gamma exposures, and I think the year on 

2 this is 1952. So for what that's worth. 

3 MR. NETON: This is interesting. 

4 I'm looking at these finding that John just 

5 excerpted, and 4.5.1 which talks about the 

6 quality assurance says this is not an SEC 

7 issue. 

8 MR. MAURO: Well, that is -- 

9 MR. NETON: Well, but when you say 

10 you put QA procedures for '53 to '85 on the O: 

11 Drive, and then we made a reference to the 

12 Parker report -- so I don't see where you guys 

13 actually looked at any of these other 

14 procedures. 

15 MR. MAURO: No, we didn't, no. The 

16 only one we looked at is the Parker report. 

17 MR. NETON: So your analysis is 

18 incomplete of the data on the O: Drive. 

19 MR. MAURO: May very well be true. 

20 MR. ROLFES: Another folder here or 

21 another procedure manual that I've placed onto 

22 the O: Drive -- let's see. This was submitted 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 364

1 as part of the NOO Fernald litigation. 

2 We've got the National Lead of Ohio 

3 procedure manual, industrial hygiene and 

4 radiation department, health and safety 

5 division, copy number 3. There are 712 pages 

6 of procedures. That was dated -- I think it 

7 has expanded upon the one that I just 

8 referenced, but I don't have the date right 

9 here in front of me. 

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: I just put that 

11 down as a dual action, and SC&A should review 

12 the procedures that are there. NIOSH might 

13 want to relook at them and, if you have 

14 anything to add -- 

15 MR. NETON: Yes, I agree. It also 

16 says here NASA ran the program in the very 

17 beginning, and these procedures were based on 

18 the -- so there's a lot of work. 

19 MR. MAURO: Yes, there is no doubt 

20 that in the notes there was reference to -- in 

21 a year-ago meeting, reference was made to a 

22 lot of material. We did not review all that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 365

1 material. 

2 MR. NETON: Okay. 

3 MR. MAURO: I am going to move on 

4 to the next to the last item under 4.5. That 

5 has to do with neutron doses. Now it turns 

6 out that one of the questions we raised was 

7 the neutron to photon ratio, and you folks had 

8 indicated in your procedure that you are using 

9 a ratio of .23. That is, if you know the 

10 photon, this is your neutron. Use a 

11 multiplier of .23. 

12 We had looked at that by doing some 

13 calculations, and we assumed different kinds 

of geometries and arrays of, for example, UF4 14 . 

15 That might be in drums or in piles, and we 

16 came up with a higher number, but we made a 

17 mistake. 

18 We made certain assumptions 

19 regarding what might be there. That was so 

20 large that it would have been a criticality 

21 issue. So we made a mistake, and we redid the 

22 numbers and checked it again, and we concur 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 366

1 that your neutron to photon ratio of .23 is 

2 claimant favorable, and as far as we are 

3 concerned, we no longer have an issue on that 

4 matter. 

5 We did not discuss this at the last 

6 meeting. I'm glad that we were able to get to 

7 it at this meeting. 

8 MR. BEHLING: Can I also make a 

9 comment here? In addition, I reviewed a 

10 position paper on neutron monitoring ascent, 

11 it=s called. It is dated 1/17/2001, and it, 

12 by and large, looks backward in time, and it 

13 says empirically, neutron dose rates and 

14 photon dose rates and, in fact, that was 

15 approved by Hennifeld, Sue Hennifeld. 

16 So I looked at that, and rather 

17 than looking at theoretical calculations that 

18 are the basis for the 0.23 neutron-photon 

19 ratio, I looked at these data. 

20 It turns out that if you look at 

21 the empirical data in that particular report, 

22 the 0.23 is very claimant favorable. So 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 367

1 again, I will only reiterate what John just 

2 said. We agree that .23 is a claimant 

3 favorable dose ratio for neutron-photons, and 

4 I think we could drop the issue. 

5 MR. NETON: Good. 

6 MR. ROLFES: In looking through the 

7 data on the O: Drive once again, in the 

8 procedures folder there is a procedure on the 

9 policies in place at Fernald for the 

10 requirements of showering, which would speak 

11 to the personnel contamination issue. 

12 MR. MAURO: Last item? The last 

13 item that we had not had an opportunity to get 

14 to at the last meeting in March 2008 had to do 

15 with unmonitored female workers. 

16 Now I guess my understanding is -- 

17 this is bioassay -- apparently, the issue had 

18 to do with the fact that female workers were 

19 not bioassayed. Now as I understand it, your 

20 co-worker model basically is going to assign 

21 everyone some intake, no matter what worker 

22 they were, and you are going to use your 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 368

1 protocol, as you had indicated. 

2 So my understanding is if, in fact, 

3 that is correct, that female workers were not 

4 bioassayed during certain time periods, as I 

5 understand this issue, the resolution -- and 

6 we didn't discuss this, but I guess I'm 

7 intuiting it -- is that you are using a model 

8 now that is going to assign intake to 

9 everybody, and it would follow your procedure. 

10 So now in effect, my understanding 

11 is that, if a person, including women who 

12 worked there, were not bioassayed, you would 

13 make certain assumptions regarding their 

14 intake that was compatible with their job 

15 descriptions and where they were, etcetera, 

16 and assign an intake. 

17 If that is the case, I guess 

18 unless anyone else has more to say about it, 

19 it seems to be a reasonable approach, given 

20 that we resolve all these other matters. 

21 MR. NETON: I would certainly agree 

22 with that. I think up to a certain point 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 369

1 women were prohibited from working in the 

2 process area at Fernald, and that is probably 

3 a good reason why they weren't monitored. 

4 MR. MAURO: Well, how this issue 

5 came up, and I think Hans can confirm it, is 

6 that we actually found that three women were, 

7 for some reason, sampled at one point in time, 

8 and not expecting to find anything, they found 

9 something. 

10 So it meant that there was enough 

11 residual contamination throughout the plant 

12 that, even if a person had a job description 

13 that would seem to be they really didn't have 

14 potential for internal exposure, had internal 

15 exposure. 

16 MR. NETON: Do you know what urine 

17 levels they had? 

18 MR. MAURO: No, but I'm sure we can 

19 track that down. 

20 MS. BALDRIDGE: It's in the SEC. 

21 MR. MAURO: Okay, there you go. 

22 MR. ROLFES: There is a document, 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 370

1 that report that indicates that those women 

2 had positive urine samples essentially, and I 

3 think we had a discussion about the process -- 

4 excuse me, the bottles for urine sample 

5 collection could have been stored in a process 

6 area. There could have been contamination in 

7 the bottles. 

8 I think we resolved this at the 

9 last meeting that we discussed this in saying 

10 that we would take a look at that data and use 

11 the data as if it were valid results. I don't 

12 recall any other further discussion of it. 

13 MR. NETON: But I agree with John's 

14 original statement that we would evaluate each 

15 case, female or male, based on the merits of 

16 their job description and assign them what we 

17 would believe the appropriate co-worker model, 

18 appropriate value from that worker model. 

19 MR. ROLFES: Right. 

20 MR. MAURO: Of course, that -- I 

21 mean, we are going to be looking the co-worker 

22 model. Okay. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 371

1 MR. NETON: Nonetheless, you would 

2 use the co-worker model for females, as 

3 appropriate. 

4 MR. BEHLING: This is Hans. 

5 Regarding those individuals that John made 

6 reference to, they were identified in Finding 

7 4.1-3, and they were, I think -- three or four 

8 of them were female. 

9 Was it your understanding that the 

10 high levels that were observed among those 

11 individuals were really due to cross12 contamination as an explanation for the 

13 unexpected finding? 

14 MR. ROLFES: That certainly is one 

15 possibility. 

16 MR. NETON: It wouldn't be the 

17 first time that happened. The reason I asked 

18 is it was a major issue with the EPA visitors 

19 at one point that showed up positive samples 

20 based on an analysis, and it turned out to be 

21 false positive as well. 

22 MR. BEHLING: I am looking at the 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 372

1 actual - You can see or read for yourself in 

2 Attachment 4.1-3. It is our report, page 29, 

3 is the actual reproduction of the document in 

4 which the individuals were cited, and it 

5 states: The following urinary uranium results 

6 were investigated, first because there were no 

7 apparent reasons for the high uranium results, 

8 and the investigation failed to show why these 

9 urine samples were high in uranium, meaning 

10 that, obviously, you must have looked at it 

11 and perhaps speculated the potential for 

12 contamination, but obviously, that was not 

13 cited as the reason. 

14 MR. MORRIS: Well, that was a 

15 discussion in one of the interviews that's 

16 available for you of the interview of the 

17 health and safety manager, and I recall him 

18 talking about that one in specific. So I'll 

19 just refer you to that. 

20 MR. BEHLING: Okay. 

21 MR. NETON: There's a number of 

22 reasons for high uranium values. We had 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 373

1 people show up with high values that were 

2 actually drinking this mineral water that came 

3 from a source that just had naturally high 

4 contents of uranium, and there's a number of 

5 reasons. Doesn't mean it's not real, but I'm 

6 just saying there are plausible explanations 

7 for high uranium values other than an exposure 

8 in the plant. 

9 MR. BEHLING: I don't doubt that, 

10 Jim, but the fact that they were three of the 

11 four were women is a little bit more difficult 

12 to assume that this was due to cross13 contamination or something like that. 

14 MR. ROLFES: I think the concern is 

15 that you've said that doses to female workers 

16 were not monitored during two operating 

17 periods, but it seems to indicate that these 

18 three women's results were, in fact, 

19 documented; and I do recall looking at the 

20 HIS-20 database to see if those high results 

21 were incorporated into the HIS-20 database, 

22 and they were, in fact, included in HIS-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 

 374

1 MR. BEHLING; Well, it may very 

2 well, Mark, be due to the fact that their 

3 analysis was linked to a yearly annual, which 

4 really was something that doesn't necessarily 

5 tie in a radiation worker, but perhaps the 

6 unexpected results were part of -- I'm not 

7 sure, but it could have been part of an annual 

8 physical where anyone was potentially subject 

9 to this evaluation without regard to their 

10 potential for exposure. 

11 MR. NETON: That could be true, and 

12 then that just, I think, speaks to the quality 

13 of the program in a way. I mean, they are 

14 monitoring people that had almost no 

15 potential, and they do find positives 

16 periodically. They follow them up. 

17 MR. MORRIS: Help me, if I'm wrong 

18 here, but wasn't this whole monitoring 

19 question of females addressed at external when 

20 you made the original comment? 

21 MR. BEHLING: To a certain extent, 

22 because we were talking about the laundry 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 375

1 personnel. 

2 CHAIR CLAWSON: They were -- I 

3 thought that, if I remember right, the person 

4 became contaminated, but the problem was they 

5 came up with an internal dose for uranium. 

6 They submitted their sample and came up 

7 positive. 

8 MR. MORRIS: But we do know for a 

9 fact that women were not monitored for 

10 external dose for some period of time. In 

11 fact, they were excluded from operating areas 

12 for several years. So that is a fact of 

13 history, not -- 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: For some reason, 

15 these women were sampled. So there must have 

16 been a reason for sampling. 

17 MR. MORRIS: Well, we do know that 

18 there were times when, although that was the 

19 rule, that they always made exceptions as 

20 necessary, like if somebody needed to come see 

21 something, they would bring them in. But I 

22 don't think that the workers that routinely 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 376

1 reported for work in a foundry or a process 

2 area were women at some time during the 

3 history of the plant. 

4 MEMBER PRESLEY: One of the things 

5 that backs that up: At Y-12 we had men 

6 working in the laundry, but there were two 

7 women that worked in the laundry. They 

8 repaired the clothes after they were washed. 

9 They were both seamstresses, and there were 

10 two that worked down there. 

11 MR. ROLFES: For some reason, I 

12 think as Bob had alluded to, I think this 

13 started off as an external dosimetry issue. 

14 MR. MAURO: It did. It did. 

15 MR. ROLFES: And we had said, you 

16 know, these are the three different ways. The 

17 current approach that we would use to 

18 reconstruct an unmonitored female worker would 

19 be to assign 500 millirems per year, which 

20 would be bounding even for some of the 

21 monitored process workers. 

22 There were other alternatives for 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 377

1 external dose. I thought that this was a 

2 concern abut whether unusual results like this 

3 would have been included in HIS-20. For some 

4 reason, that is what rang a bell in my mind. 

5 I'd have to look. I don't have a 

6 copy of my old matrix, unfortunately. I only 

7 have this updated one that you put together. 

8 MR. MAURO: No. What you are 

9 looking at right now is from the old matrix. 

10 In other words, there is no new material that 

11 I added to this, because we did not discuss 

12 this issue at the last meeting. So all you 

13 are really looking at is the old matrix. 

14 MR. ROLFES: Okay. So it is 

15 everything -- 

16 MR. MAURO: This is roughly the old 

17 matrix, and we didn't visit this the last time 

18 out. 

19 MR. ROLFES: I think there were 

20 more details about how we would assign an 

21 unmonitored dose. That's why it didn't ring a 

22 bell with me. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 378

1 MR. MAURO: As I mentioned, I 

2 grabbed two, what I believe to be, the most 

3 recent matrices we had available as my 

4 starting point. 

5 MR. ROLFES: Let me take a look to 

6 see I have a copy of Earl's matrix. I'm not 

7 seeing it. 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Draft NIOSH 

9 response, the second -- the big paragraph 

10 there, draft NIOSH response. 

11 MR. ROLFES: Okay. Yes. So we 

12 did. I'm sorry. It's getting late. I just 

13 assumed I missed it when we took the notes. 

14 MR. MAURO: It's here. 

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't think we 

16 have anything more to do with that, other than 

17 the co-worker model should cover it. 

18 MR. ROLFES: Right. I think we had 

19 committed that, if we had an unusually high 

20 result that, if we didn't have an 

21 investigation report which explained it, we 

22 would assume that it was a real result and use 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 379

1 that in dose reconstruction. That would be 

2 the claimant favorable thing to do. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think the other 

4 issue that sort of came up in our discussion 

5 was this question of why -- these people with 

6 significant exposure: Why weren't they in a 

7 routine program or something like that? But I 

8 think we are covering that with our first item 

9 that we discussed all morning, the co-worker 

10 model. Did they get the highest exposed 

11 people? 

12 If that's fine, then this is fine. 

13 CHAIR CLAWSON: Okay. 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: John asked me to 

15 look at this last -- there's these last items, 

16 and I don't want to just forget about them, 

17 but I think several of them have been 

18 addressed with NIOSH responses. So just to go 

19 through them. 

20 I know that, number one, you've 

21 posted transcripts, I believe, on the O: 

22 Drive. Correct, Mark? Pretty sure I've seen 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 380

1 those. 

2 MR. ROLFES: Right. 

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: And then there's 

4 also a couple of references noted there. 

5 The Tiger Team reports: Now they 

6 have been posted, right? I believe there a 

7 reference they have been posted. 

8 MR. ROLFES: That's correct. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm not sure that 

10 SC&A has looked at these. Just to be 

11 complete, I think we've asked you look at 

12 those. You should look at those with an eye 

13 toward does it have any impact on the dose 

14 reconstruction aspects. 

15 There was a previous item that said 

16 SC&A will review the posted reports. 

17 Item 3 is -- Mark, can you help me 

18 with this one, these other groups that did -- 

19 MR. ROLFES: Yes. It says NIOSH 

20 will follow up on whether other groups or 

21 agencies did any off-site monitoring at 

22 Fernald. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 381

1 I think our response was that the 

2 following agencies are known to have 

3 participated in environmental monitoring 

4 programs at Fernald. We put the Ohio 

5 Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers 

6 for Disease Control, Agency for Toxic 

7 Substances and Disease Registry, and the Ohio 

8 Department of Health. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm not sure 

10 exactly when this question arose, but I guess, 

11 in addition -- yes, what relevance. That is 

12 my question is what relevance? Are there 

13 reports that would be pertinent, that they 

14 published that would be pertinent? 

15 MR. MORRIS: Now I just recall that 

16 Brad asked -- Ian talked to us about that and 

17 tell us who may have had other sources of 

18 data, and that was just what we came up with. 

19 CHAIR CLAWSON: With off-site 

20 monitoring. Do you know what this French & 

21 Bell report might come into, or Phillips 

22 report may have come into it. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 382

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. So that 

2 might be the one pertinent lead worth 

3 following up on. 

4 CHAIR CLAWSON: Because in reading 

5 through a lot of that, there were some other 

6 off-site monitoring and so forth like that, 

7 and we were just -- what was coming from the 

8 plant? 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: It seems to me, 

10 the only follow-up on that one would be that 

11 second drive. 

12 CHAIR CLAWSON: And I think that 

13 you've put -- that Mark has put some 

14 environmental ones on there. I know that I 

15 read some environmental reports and so forth 

16 like that that they had put in to it. 

17 MR. ROLFES: There is an 

18 environment safety and health progress 

19 assessment of Fernald, and I think that was -- 

20 let's see, and then also the environment -- 

21 there were other environmental surveys that 

22 were conducted by Fernald personnel as well. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 383

1 Off-site monitoring was also done. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: You know what I 

3 want to do with this, just so we don't miss 

4 anything. I think we should ask SC&A to 

5 review what you have posted on other agency 

6 reports for relevance, and report back to us, 

7 and don't go any further. 

8 If they are completely 

9 environmental and you don't feel they are 

10 relevant to occupational dose reconstruction, 

11 then you can tell us that. Just review for 

12 relevance, I guess, is what I would say. 

13 MR. MAURO: Got it. 

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: And then the 

15 fourth one is committee formed to reconstruct 

16 thorium operational history. I do remember 

17 discussing this. Basically, I think you've 

18 concluded that you have a reasonable thorium 

19 operational history and, from the raw data 

20 that you have looked at and, I think, covered, 

21 and there is no need to go any further into 

22 this other report. Right? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 384

1 MR. MORRIS: I think you are right. 

2 We've done a pretty nice historical timeline 

3 on thorium, got it presented pretty well, and 

4 I think it actually correlates pretty well 

5 with the research we have done in the last few 

6 months at Savannah River for the evaluation 

7 report there; because the thorium from Fernald 

8 actually was a feed stock to Savannah River. 

9 So we have actually gotten -- been 

10 able to line those two up, and they make sense 

11 together. 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't think 

13 there is any further action there, unless -- 

14 and we will see this thorium operational 

15 timeline sort of laid out when we look at the 

16 -- 

17 MR. MORRIS; It's on the O: Drive 

18 now. 

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: It's on the O: 

20 Drive, but also when we are going to look at 

21 closer, I guess, is with the valuated averages 

22 and how they work together. Right? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 385

1 MR. MORRIS: Sure, yes. And it 

2 will be in the revision when we redo Chapter 2 

3 of the site profile. 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Then unless 

5 anybody stops me, Item 5, follow-up on doses 

6 assigned in the beginning years of '83 to '85. 

7 CHAIR CLAWSON: This has to do with 

8 the skin dose correction. 

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. And the last 

10 thing I see is interviews are continuing to 

11 discover if additional corrections were 

12 applied. So I don't know where this stands, 

13 really. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is that a NIOSH 

15 comment in red? 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: I am not sure. 

17 MR. NETON: I think that's a NIOSH 

18 comment. 

19 MR. MAURO: That would have been 

20 something that had been added after the 

21 October 2007 meeting as additional information 

22 that was -- that's usually how that works. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 386

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, you put it in 

2 right here, John. 

3 MR. MAURO: No, no. It was in red. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: So it was in red. 

5 Okay, I see. 

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't know if I 

7 put it or, Mark, if you put it in, because we 

8 have been sending these back and forth. 

9 MR. ROLFES: To the best of my 

10 recollection, it was our statement that -- 

11 well, you know, I don't know. 

12 MR. NETON: There was one issue 

13 when they initiated the -- they switched to 

14 the thermal luminescent dosimeter, that there 

15 was an incorrect algorithm. They fit like a 

16 fourth order polynomial to a few data points, 

17 and, unbeknownst -- before computers were 

18 really readily available, it put an extra loop 

19 in there that really wasn't justified, based 

20 on degrees of freedom of the data, and they 

21 went back and re-analyzed the calibration 

22 curve, and redid the data. Walt just actually 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 387

1 redid that analysis. 

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: That last 

3 statement is what is making it an open action 

4 item. 

5 MR. NETON; Yes. I don't know why. 

6 CHAIR CLAWSON: But I think you are 

7 right or I'm remembering right, because I 

8 think it that additional interviews came from 

9 people questioning when they did that, when 

10 they changed that. 

11 MR. NETON: Right. 

12 CHAIR CLAWSON: There were some 

13 issues there with it. 

14 MR. NETON; I think it was fairly 

15 well documented through internal memos what 

16 transpired there. At least that's my 

17 recollection. 

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

20 MR. ROLFES: The interviews that we 

21 have alluded to, I believe, were conducted in 

22 August 2007, plus we've got a couple of 
 NEAL R. GROSS

 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 388

1 interviews from November of 2007. So this was 

2 likely alluding to a couple of interviews that 

3 we put onto the O: Drive back in 2007. 

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: We need to close 

5 that out then. Make sure that it=s -- well, 

6 they need to make sure. 

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right. That's 

8 it. 

9 CHAIR CLAWSON: That sounds good to 

10 me. 

11 MR. KATZ: Folks on the phone, if 

12 there are any still left, we are adjourning. 

13 Thank you for participating. 

14 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

15 matter concluded at 5:01 p.m.) 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21