1

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION 

AND WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

FERNALD WORK GROUP 

+ + + + + 

MONDAY, 

JUNE 17, 2013 

+ + + + + 

The meeting convened in the Zurich

Room of the Cincinnati Airport Marriott, 2395

Progress Drive, Hebron, Kentucky, at 9:00

a.m., Bradley P. Clawson, Chairman, presiding. 

MEMBERS PRESENT: 

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Chairman

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member* 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
 
2 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

ALSO PRESENT: 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal

Official 

BOB BARTON, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A*

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, ORAU Team*

HARRY CHMELYNSKI, SC&A*

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

KARIN JESSEN, ORAU Team* 

KAREN KENT, ORAU Team*

JOSH KINMAN, DCAS contractor

TOM LaBONE, ORAU Team*

JENNY LIN, HHS*

JOYCE LIPSZTEIN, SC&A*

MARK ROLFES, DCAS

MATT SMITH, ORAU Team*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A 

*Participating via 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
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

3

AGENDA ITEM PAGE 

Intro/Background (progress since 4 

3/7/2013 WG meeting) 

Uranium bioassay coworker model for 5 

subcontractors during pre-1986

period (SEC Issue #1) 

Thorium-232 coworker model based on 78 

DWE reports for 1953-1967 period

(SEC issue 6a) 

Thorium-232 coworker model based on 179 

chest count data for 1978-1988 

period; implementation 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 4

2 
 (9:00 a.m.) 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Good morning, everyone. 

4 
 On the line is the Advisory Board of 

5 
 Radiation and Worker Health Fernald Work 

6 
 Group. For notice for people on the line, the 

7 
 agenda for this meeting and some other 

8 
 materials for this meeting are posted on the 

9 
 NIOSH website under the Board Meetings section 

10 
 under today's date. So you can follow along 

11 there. 

12 
 Let's start with roll call. And 

13 
 since we have a specific site, let's speak to 

14 
 conflict of interest as well. And let's begin 

15 with Board Members, with the Chair. 

16 (Roll Call.) 

17 MR. KATZ: Brad, it's your agenda. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Well, 

19 
 first of all, I kind of wanted to recap where 

20 
 we are at on Fernald right now. And, as we 

21 
 sit right now, there has been an SEC. 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 from '68 to '78, correct? 5 

2 
 MR. STIVER: Correct. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And that was 

4 
 under thorium? 

5 
 MR. STIVER: Correct. That was on 

6 
 the in vivo thorium reported as milligrams 

7 
 thorium. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. And then 

9 
 I just want to make sure that we have that 

10 
 kind of in place right there. And what we're 

11 
 looking at is the earlier years right now of 

12 
 construction workers. And I believe it's into 

13 SC&A's court to start out and go from there. 

14 
 MR. STIVER: Okay. This is John 

15 
 Stiver from SC&A. At the last meeting, in 

16 
 March, I know DCAS had 11 different action 

17 
 items that they were tasked to produce for 

18 
 this meeting. And the first six relate to 

19 
 this issue of whether the uranium bioassay 

20 
 coworker model is indeed applicable to the 

21 
 subcontractors employed at Fernald 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 pre-1986 time frame. This is during NLO's,6 

2 
 National Lead of Ohio's, tenure before 

3 
 Westinghouse came and took over the M&O 

4 
 contract. 

5 
 And Stu and Mark had posted several 

6 
 documents related to this. So it might be 

7 
 best if you guys would just kind of lead out 

8 
 and, you know, give us all an overview of what 

9 
 you did and what you feel the conclusions are 

10 from that and we can follow up with them. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, we had 

12 
 a couple tasks or several tasks related or 

13 
 items related to the applicability as a 

14 
 construction subcontractor or applicability of 

15 
 the coworker model to construction 

16 
 subcontractors, the reason being that until 

17 
 about 1986, not all of the bioassay or 

18 
 subcontractors got placed into the database, 

19 
 the site-wide database, although some of it 

20 
 has been captured in hard form and we do have 

21 
 a smattering of subcontractor 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 over early years. And then starting in about7 

2 
 '83 or '84, there is a more consistent pattern 

3 
 of subcontractor data. 

4 
 So one of the items we were to look 

5 
 at was a specific set of subcontractors from 

6 
 1969 who were, in fact, for bioassay and look 

7 
 at the exposures that they received. And that 

8 
 is item number 1. There's a summary presented 

9 
 in item number 1 that shows several people 

10 
 involved in that and how their intake rates 

11 
 would relate to the intake associated that the 

12 
 coworker model would assign. And in each of 

13 
 those, for each solubility class, there were 

14 
 intakes for this monitored population that 

15 would be higher than the coworker model. 

16 
 So there is evidence here that 

17 
 there were some -- this set of contractors was 

18 
 exposed more heavily than the coworker model 

19 
 would dictate. And, of course, on the other 

20 
 side of the coin, these contractors were 

21 
 monitored. So Fernald appropriately 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 recognized that in this case, these8 

2 
 contractors would be exposed or were being 

3 
 exposed. And so they were placed on bioassay 

4 
 programs. 

5 
 So that is a piece of information 

6 
 that may be relevant to our discussion. Its 

7 
 interpretation is not definitive. You can 

8 
 say, well, and one interpretation is that 

9 
 contractors were more heavily exposed than the 

10 
 site worker population. And, therefore, the 

11 
 site worker population model won't hit. That 

12 is one interpretation. 

13 
 The other interpretation of the 

14 
 same data is that when these contractors came 

15 
 in and were going to be heavily exposed, they 

16 
 were monitored. And so the coworker data 

17 
 wouldn't be used for them anyway. So those 

18 
 are essentially the two ways to interpret that 

19 
 data set. And it is hard to -- you know, the 

20 
 evidence that we have been able to gather 

21 
 doesn't provide a definitive, 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 description of which interpretation is true. 9 

2 
 I think it is a fact to know -- you 

3 
 know, something that has kind of flavored my 

4 
 discussion here is that quite often or maybe 

5 
 not at all will we get an exposure history 

6 
 record for a subcontractor prior to sometime 

7 
 in the '80s, '86 or maybe a little before 

8 
 that, because the site as it appears to me did 

9 
 not generally generate an exposure record for 

10 
 subcontractor personnel, even as far as the 

11 
 film badge. In very many cases, subcontractor 

12 
 personnel wore a visitor badge, as opposed to 

13 
 a defined badge with an exposure record, in 

14 their name. 

15 
 So that is one aspect of this that 

16 
 kind of influenced my thinking. But, on the 

17 
 other hand, this one piece of evidence we have 

18 
 of a subcontractor workforce that said we were 

19 
 exposed, they did appropriately monitor them 

20 for bioassay. 

21 
 So that is sort of one of the tasks 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that we did and piece of information I think10

2 
 might be relevant to the discussion. But, 

3 
 like I said, the interpretation is not 

4 
 definitive. You don't really know how to 

5 
 interpret that piece of information. 

6 
 Does anybody want to offer anything 

7 
 beyond that or should I go on with just in 

8 
 general the discussion of subcontractors in 

9 
 general? 

10 MR. STIVER: I would like to say 

11 
 something about that. I am kind of in the 

12 
 same place you are, Stu. This is John Stiver. 

13 
 Because you have, as you say, you have got 

14 
 this long period of time. You ignore the 

15 
 bookend years, like you say, of '51 to '53, 

16 
 when the construction was going on in a 

17 
 pristine radiological environment when they 

18 were actually building a site. 

19 
 And then, evidently, based on 

20 
 another report that we haven't talked about 

21 
 yet Gene Potter put together, it looks 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 there may be enough data on the '84-'85 time11

2 
 frame. 

3 
 So then you have this period from 

4 
 about '53 to '83 where there is, like you say, 

5 
 a smattering of bioassay data for these 

6 
 people. And as you go back in time, it 

7 
 becomes more and more spotty, really. Prior 

8 
 to 1969, there just isn't any at all. 

9 
 So there is this question, this 

10 
 nagging question, about what do you do about 

11 
 subcontractors in this early period? They are 

12 
 not well-represented. And, I mean, you can't 

13 
 necessarily make the presumption that you have 

14 
 kind of a random group from the same 

15 
 population, some monitored, some aren't, so 

16 
 that you could build the -- you know, just use 

17 
 this coworker model to bracket these exposures 

18 
 for the unmonitored group. So I guess that is 

19 my main problem. 

20 
 We had quite a few technical issues 

21 
 about how some of the assumptions that went 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 into the dose reconstructions you guys did for12

2 
 these unmonitored and non-claimants, the nine 

3 
 non-claimants, --

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

5 
 MR. STIVER: -- and also for -- you 

6 
 were able to pick out I think the top four 

7 
 from that group who have the hard-copy records 

8 
 in that pre-1986 environment. Evidently there 

9 
 are about 20 claimants in that group, too. 

10 
 And so you are able to pick out the high four 

11 
 or five of those and do reconstructions for 

12 
 them as well. So we have some questions about 

13 
 kind of, you know, whether, really, the proper 

14 type of comparison was done between those. 

15 
 But I think the bottom line is that 

16 
 this little -- you can't really tell the 

17 
 statistical analysis because there is not 

18 
 enough data. It's really more a 

19 proof-of-concept study. 

20 
 You know, given that we have this 

21 
 group from this period of time and we 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 have bioassay data for them, you know, what13

2 
 would the coworker model have provided were 

3 
 they not bioassayed? And then you can make a 

4 
 comparison between the two. 

5 
 And, as you say, the evidence is 

6 
 that, no, the coworker model probably wouldn't 

7 
 bound most of these people. So you're stuck 

8 
 in this position. What do you do now? It 

9 
 would appear to me that the coworker model 

10 
 really is not applicable to this group of 

11 
 workers in this period of time. It is not too 

12 
 representative of them and certainly not 

13 bounding. 

14 
 So I guess that is where we are at 

15 
 this point for the 10,000-foot view. I mean, 

16 
 certainly we could get into some of the 

17 details if we need to. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, I was a 

19 
 little -- I was still trying to understand 

20 
 which approach that NIOSH was really hanging 

21 
 their hat on because a lot of this -- you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 know, we have gone back and forth in several14

2 
 different revolutions of what we were going to 

3 
 do. And one of my questions was to NIOSH, 

4 
 what approach with the coworkers were we going 

5 
 to take. And if it was a coworker, you know, 

6 
 I wanted to make sure that we justly went in 

7 
 and reviewed it because at one time, we have 

8 
 kind of gone back and forth. 

9 
 And we have got kind of a course 

10 
 that is kind of a broad spectrum, let me say, 

11 
 what your approach towards it was. And I 

12 
 wanted to pin down exactly the approach that 

13 NIOSH was wanting to proceed forward with. 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, with respect 

15 
 to the coworker uranium intake, I think we 

16 
 have been relatively consistent on that. I 

17 
 mean, we have done some examination of 

18 
 subcontractor populations we could find 

19 
 compared to the in-house workforce. But I 

20 
 think we have been fairly consistent in saying 

21 
 that we have a coworker model built 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 
 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 bioassay data that, until 1986, is only the15

2 
 in-house employees pretty much and what we 

3 
 felt that their exposure experience would be 

4 
 sufficiently representative or bounding of 

5 
 subcontractor exposures who were not 

6 
 monitored, subcontractors who were not 

7 
 monitored. So, I mean, that has pretty much 

8 
 been our approach. 

9 
 And then most recently, the 

10 
 alteration was we did look at the last three 

11 
 years of that period, so the '83, '84, and 

12 
 '85, I guess, and said, in those 3 years, we 

13 
 have enough bioassay data from subcontractors. 

14 
 We have over 30 people monitored in each 

15 
 year. And that is kind of our number where we 

16 
 will start to look at the feasibility of a 

17 
 coworker population. And we have said that, 

18 
 if desirable, we could use to build or 

19 
 construct a subcontractor coworker model for 

20 
 '83, '84, and '85, but '85, it would be no 

21 
 different. There is really no difference 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 '85 between subcontractors and the in-house. 16 

2 
 So that is really I think the only 

3 
 variation we have made, is that we could, we 

4 
 believe, construct a construction coworker 

5 
 model for construction workers who were not 

6 
 monitored in '83 and '84. 

7 
 And then from '85 forward, the 

8 
 coworker model that we had proposed all along 

9 
 would be the model for everybody because 

10 
 everybody's data is in that data set. So, you 

11 
 know, that is I think the only variation we 

12 made on this. 

13 
 Now, later on, we have had several 

14 
 possible approaches when we get into DWE work 

15 
 or the early thorium work. So there are 

16 
 several possible things that are going to take 

17 
 around there, but I think on this one, we have 

18 been fairly consistent. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: What about on --

20 
 this is Brad -- the Type 50 data? This came 

21 in and now --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the Type 50,17 

2 
 there was some confusion about whether Type 50 

3 
 should be in the database or not. And I think 

4 
 it was sort of a misunderstanding. Type 50 

5 
 seemed like it was like incident type and it 

6 
 wouldn't be indicative of routine exposures 

7 
 when, in fact, I think a 50 was assigned to 

8 
 anyone who wasn't on a routine bioassay 

9 
 program. And so very often the 

10 
 subcontractor's code was put in as a 50 

11 
 because he wasn't considered one of the 

12 in-house routine monitored people. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I apologize if I 

14 
 misrepresented, Stu, when I was saying what I 

15 
 was. I guess what I was looking at is the 

16 
 information with just Type 50 data. And it's 

17 
 gone out back and forth. I was just looking 

18 
 at some point of the approach of it and what 

19 
 information is going to be used in it. And so 

20 that's --

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think most of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that has been settled. And I think, really,18 

2 
 the question here for the Work Group -- and, 

3 
 you know, I didn't come down here to fight 

4 
 about anything. I came down here to kind of 

5 
 get all of this information out here and kind 

6 
 of moving forward. 

7 
 And so the question, then, is, 

8 
 given what we know -- and there are some big 

9 
 holes in what we know, but we may want to look 

10 
 at some more stuff later on in terms of the 

11 
 number of contractors, to scan a list of 

12 
 contractors without data. Given what we know, 

13 
 do we feel like construction subcontractors, 

14 
 like in 1969, when there was a job that 

15 
 warranted monitoring, that Fernald was 

16 
 consistently picking people and monitoring 

17 
 those people? So that there just wasn't that 

18 
 much construction work between '54 and '69 

19 
 that would have occurred in a controlled area. 

20 
 And so that is why there is not 

21 
 much data from subcontractor-side data or 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 
 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 we feel like the 1969 incident, where Fernald19

2 
 appropriately monitored the subcontractor, was 

3 
 that the aberration and that someone just 

4 
 happened? You know, a particular person 

5 
 happened to be particularly conscientious who 

6 
 was following that job and made sure those 

7 
 people were monitored; whereas, other jobs, 

8 
 maybe not quite as bad as that one, but other 

9 
 exposed jobs done by contractors, did not get 

10 
 -- you know, they weren't quite as 

11 
 conscientious. And so you have got 

12 
 subcontractors out there unmonitored who may 

13 
 not have exposures represented by the coworker 

14 
 data set. To me, that is really the question 

15 that we need to address. 

16 
 And before we get too far down that 

17 
 path of addressing it, I think there is one 

18 
 file or two files that we posted under item 

19 
 number 4 which are lists of workers, lists of 

20 
 claimants who do not have bioassay data. Now, 

21 
 we have a much longer list of claimants that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 was compiled around 2010, and we didn't update20

2 
 that. It is just an extraordinary amount of 

3 
 work. And I didn't think the nature of the 

4 
 claimant population -- there is no reason to 

5 
 believe it would have changed between 2010 and 

6 
 2013. It would just be an extraordinary 

7 
 amount of work to update that spreadsheet. 

8 
 So on there, what I did is out of 

9 
 the entire list, which I can also -- I can put 

10 
 the entire unedited list of claimants on item 

11 
 4 if anybody wants to look at it, but what I 

12 
 did from that entire list of claimants was 

13 
 clipped out the ones who do not have bioassay 

14 
 and put them on the spreadsheet. So there are 

15 
 like 80 names who do not have bioassay. And 

16 
 this includes the job description for those 

17 
 people. So you can make some judgments about 

18 that. 

19 
 And there are certainly -- there 

20 
 are certainly construction trades in there. 

21 
 There are sheet workers. There are asbestos 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 installers. There are things like that. And21 

2 
 there are security police officers, who only 

3 
 worked for a short period of time who are 

4 
 almost surely hired by the prime. Certain 

5 
 people who only worked for a short period of 

6 
 time were almost certainly hired by the prime, 

7 
 but were there for such a short period of time 

8 
 they didn't get a bioassay sample. There was 

9 
 an AEC employee, pretty clearly an AEC 

10 employee, on the list. 

11 
 So we can kind of take a look at 

12 
 those and see what we think about what that 

13 
 informs of. There are a lot of last 

14 
 employment dates around 1954, which would 

15 
 indicate to me they were involved in the 

16 
 construction of the plant because I think they 

17 were still building things up until then. 

18 
 And then it occurs to me that the 

19 
 health and safety buildings; for instance, the 

20 
 health and safety building, was built later 

21 
 than 1954, but it wasn't a lot later. 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 it was the last half of the '50s when they22

2 
 decided they should build a health and safety 

3 
 building, rather than do whatever the health 

4 
 and safety activities or the lab or 

5 
 administration building, where they had been 

6 
 doing them. So there might be some there. I 

7 
 haven't looked at it very thoroughly. But 

8 
 there are some. 

9 
 The one that comes to mind is a 

10 
 particular person who was an asbestos 

11 
 installer or something like that who worked 

12 
 for a subcontractor and has a long period of 

13 
 time of verified employment. So that would 

14 
 not be someone who was only there for the 

15 early construction. 

16 
 So, I mean, if you would like, it 

17 
 might be worthwhile for us, if we can look at 

18 
 that spreadsheet, just for each person, to 

19 
 kind of look and see if there is something 

20 noteworthy about job titles from that. 

21 
 MR. STIVER: And to kind of follow 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 on, Bob Barton had done a similar exercise23

2 
 from our end. And they are about the same 

3 
 number of personnel. And he was also able to 

4 
 compile statistics on the average period of 

5 
 employment, the number of workers on a monthly 

6 
 basis at that time and the same type of 

7 
 information on jobs. 

8 
 Maybe, Bob, you want to talk a 

9 
 little bit? 

10 MR. BARTON: Yes. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Is that one of 

12 the things you sent last night? 

13 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. It was about 

14 
 10:00 last night. My apologies for that. 

15 
 MR. BARTON: This is Bob Barton. 

16 
 As John was just alluding to, we kind of today 

17 
 focus review of some claims on NOCTS, you 

18 
 know, specifically targeting construction job 

19 
 types. And you can go into their DOL initial 

20 
 case file. And it will very often tell you 

21 
 whether they are employed by NLO or Legge -- I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 am not sure if that is how you pronounce it --24

2 
 or any of these other subcontractors that were 

3 
 at the site. And, not surprisingly, they 

4 
 don't have internal dosimetry. We found about 

5 
 just under 50 claimants that are, in effect, 

6 
 subcontractors that would be under 

7 
 consideration for all the discussions 

8 
 concerning application of the coworker model. 

9 
 And, actually, see, you had 

10 
 something that I think is an important point 

11 
 in that if we could come around and say, well, 

12 
 listen, these 1969 workers, for instance, they 

13 
 were monitored. So you wouldn't even 

14 
 necessarily need the coworker model for those 

15 workers if they were monitored. 

16 
 I mean, you probably need it for 

17 
 unmonitored dose, the last bioassay sample, 

18 
 you would have to apply the coworker model 

19 
 there. But, as I understand it, the data for 

20 
 the 1969 workers was not something that was 

21 
 sent by DOE. It was as a result of an 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 independent records search that you guys had25

2 
 performed. And you found a lot of books, and 

3 
 you transcribed them yourself. 

4 
 So I guess, as a practical matter, 

5 
 you know, maybe they did go in and did take 

6 
 samples from these subcontractors who were the 

7 
 highest exposed. And so, you know, you would 

8 
 have records for them. 

9 
 But when you go to do a DR, if you 

10 
 are not getting those records from DOE and --

11 
 you know, are you going to go out and try to 

12 
 find all of the log books that are possibly 

13 
 out there? Because if you are not actually 

14 
 getting their data to do a dose reconstruction 

15 
 on it, well, then you are stuck applying the 

16 coworker model. 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I understand 

18 
 what you are saying. What you are saying is 

19 
 that this data that we have from 1969 was 

20 
 captured in a data capture. And Mark can 

21 
 probably speak more knowledgeably about how 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 confident we are of whether we got everything26

2 
 that could possibly exist because your point 

3 
 was maybe Fernald did everything the right way 

4 
 and they were appropriately conscientious 

5 
 every time a contractor came in and was 

6 
 exposed, but they didn't make an exposure 

7 
 record for that person. So we don't get it 

8 
 from DOE. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. 

10 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And our ability to 

11 
 find that depends upon whether we actually 

12 
 captured every possible data point that we 

13 
 could have captured. Now, Mark, can you say 

14 
 more about how to capture the data or maybe 

15 somebody from ORAU? 

16 
 MR. ROLFES: Yes. I recall this 

17 
 has been a few years back that we requested 

18 
 the data. They were on urine sample request 

19 
 cards. Basically an employee would be asked 

20 to report for a sample at a certain time. 

21 
 The results came on maybe 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 four-by-six-sized cards. We asked for log27 

2 
 books for urine sample request cards, anything 

3 
 and everything that we thought would fit the 

4 
 bill for a bioassay sample. To the best of 

5 
 our knowledge, we requested everything we 

6 
 could think of to request, and we received 

7 
 everything that DOE has been able to find. 

8 
 I don't think there's really too 

9 
 much more, but what we have done with those 

10 
 results, we have linked them in NOCTS. We 

11 
 have a document in our Site Research Database. 

12 
 And each individual claimant who provided a 

13 
 hard copy or a urine sample that is recorded 

14 
 on a hard copy piece of paper, we have linked 

15 
 that document from our Site Research Database 

16 
 into the claim file. 

17 
 And so when we originally thought 

18 
 we had an unmonitored claimant, it turns out 

19 
 that if you look in the Site Research Database 

20 
 or in this other exposure record, it turns out 

21 
 that who we thought was unmonitored may 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 actually been monitored. 28 

2 
 But yes. You know, we have no 

3 
 guarantee that we have every piece of data. 

4 
 So that comes back to what we would do with an 

5 
 unmonitored person, a true unmonitored person. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So we attempted --

7 
 I should have said this, for instance, we 

8 
 didn't get a chronologically complete, in 

9 
 other words, for essentially every workday, a 

10 
 set of urine request cards. We got a pile of 

11 
 urine request cards, but presumably it doesn't 

12 cover almost every day of the --

13 
 MR. STIVER: Essentially you have 

14 kind of a patchwork for those years, but --

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. We don't 

16 know. 

17 
 MR. ROLFES: We didn't have a list, 

18 
 for example, that says we have urine request 

19 
 cards taken on all of these days and we don't 

20 
 have, you know, something to compare what we 

21 have in our possession to a master list, --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. 29 

2 
 MR. ROLFES: -- for example, of all 

3 
 those samples that were ever collected. But, 

4 
 to the best of our knowledge, we requested 

5 
 and, to the best of our knowledge, we received 

6 
 everything that was recorded. 

7 
 MR. STIVER: So that 940 hard copy 

8 
 records for about 180 individuals over the 9 

9 
 different years is basically -- that plus the 

10 HIS-20 is what we have got to work with. 

11 MR. ROLFES: Yes. 

12 
 MR. BARTON: That is where we will 

13 expect to find more data. 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We would not 

15 expect to find any more. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: So to the extent that 

17 
 you could build a coworker model for those 

18 
 earlier years is contingent on that data. And 

19 
 you're telling me and from what I have seen, 

20 
 too, certainly, '84 and '85 look pretty good, 

21 
 '83 possibly. But before that, just in this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 kind of gray area where you really don't --30

2 
 you have to make -- in order to make any kind 

3 
 of determination, you have got to make some 

4 
 presumptions about how many people were 

5 
 actually monitored, how complete those records 

6 
 might be, whether in earlier years they are 

7 
 not monitored because they didn't have an 

8 
 exposure potential. 

9 
 Now, personally I find it hard to 

10 
 believe that, you know, during the whole 

11 
 period of operations, where there is equipment 

12 
 being used, wearing out and replaced, there 

13 
 are some capital projects going on, you've got 

14 
 guys, an asbestos worker there for a number of 

15 
 years, sheet metal workers, all these people 

16 who would be expected to be highly exposed. 

17 
 I find it hard to believe that lack 

18 
 of monitoring data for these folks would be 

19 
 indicative of a lack of exposure potential. 

20 
 And so I guess, you know, the problem we have 

21 
 got now is really to identify -- you know, of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 all those construction trades and those31 

2 
 claimants, to the extent that the claimant 

3 
 list, those 50 or 80 are really fully 

4 
 representative. 

5 
 You know, you have indicated some, 

6 
 like security guards that are there for a few 

7 
 days and so forth. They wouldn't really fall 

8 
 within this group. Whereas, sheet metal 

9 
 workers, asbestos workers, carpenters, people 

10 of that type probably would be. 

11 
 So maybe it might be good to take a 

12 
 look at that, the spreadsheets, and kind of go 

13 
 through and get an idea of the types of 

14 workers that we would be concerned with here. 

15 
 MR. KATZ: So, Paul, are you online 

16 as well as listening? 

17 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I am on the 

18 
 line. 

19 MR. KATZ: So are you able to also 

20 look at that spreadsheet? 

21 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I have 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 here. 32 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. Great, great. 

3 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I do have a couple 

4 
 of questions if I could interpose at this 

5 
 point. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, by all means. 

7 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I don't know if Stu 

8 
 would answer this or one of the others, but 

9 
 were there any policies and procedures in the 

10 
 plant, the subcontractors, in terms of 

11 
 determining formally when bioassay would be 

12 
 required or was it just left up to an 

13 
 individual HP as to whether the folks they 

14 were monitoring would have bioassay? 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think we 

16 
 have found anything about the guidance, you 

17 
 know, some set of procedures or policies that 

18 the company adopted. 

19 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. So we can't 

20 
 hook into anything other than sort of the 

21 
 implication that perhaps since we have some 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 folks like these 12 who seem to have high33

2 
 values, that perhaps it was required, but that 

3 
 is no reason to hook into to put them away, 

4 
 then, right? 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't believe we 

6 
 have found anything like a policy from the 

7 
 '50s, '60s, or '70s that would say when 

8 
 subcontractors come in or anybody, you know, 

9 
 here is the policy for monitoring people 

10 
 working at the site. I don't know that we 

11 have found anything that would fit that. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

13 
 MR. ROLFES: I can take a look and 

14 
 see, Dr. Ziemer, and get back to the Work 

15 Group after this meeting. 

16 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, if there is 

17 
 no policy and it was left sort of to the 

18 
 individual to make a judgment sort of on the 

19 
 fly, then it creates a little bit of a problem 

20 
 for us, I think, in terms of assuming that 

21 
 there was some consistency. It's a little 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 more ad hoc. 34 

2 
 The other question was, were these 

3 
 12 contractor individuals or any of them 

4 
 included in the coworker model? Did I 

5 
 understand it was just the regular employees 

6 
 in the coworker model? 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. The coworker 

8 
 model we built was built from the data in the 

9 
 database. And these 12 people's results were 

10 
 not in the database. And so they would not be 

11 
 in the coworker population that was used or 

12 
 the population that was used in the coworker 

13 approach. 

14 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: And what impact --

15 
 I don't have a good feel for -- there are just 

16 
 12 individuals here. Do we have other 

17 
 subcontractor data, bioassay data, or is it 

18 just these 12? 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, in 1969, I 

20 
 don't think we have any other subcontractor 

21 
 data. We have a smattering of subcontractor 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 bioassay data from a handful of years. I35 

2 
 forget exactly how many of years between '52 

3 
 and '82. There's just a handful of years when 

4 
 we have -- and in any given year, we have 

5 
 certainly fewer than 30 and probably fewer 

6 
 than 12 individuals, you know, subcontractors 

7 
 who were monitored. Do you have that data, 

8 
 Mark? 

9 
 MR. ROLFES: Yes. I have it pulled 

10 
 up here. For 1969, we have 52 results; 1971, 

11 
 there are 85; 1972, there's 17; 1973, there 

12 
 were only 4; 1981, it's 35 results. Then in 

13 
 1983, it jumps up to 164; `84 is 275; '85 is 

14 307; '86 is 370. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And those are the 

16 
 results. 

17 
 MR. ROLFES: Correct. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That's not the 

19 number of monitored people. 

20 MR. ROLFES: Correct. 

21 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Did you 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 to that random or are these just the 1236

2 
 highest? 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The 12 people we 

4 
 selected from 1969 were 12 people that we had 

5 
 bioassay data for, and they I think probably 

6 
 were the highest bioassay data. They were 

7 
 pretty high. That probably was the highest 

8 
 bioassay data we found. 

9 
 MR. STIVER: If I could step in? 

10 
 This is John Stiver. We picked that group in 

11 
 1969 because mainly it looked as though they 

12 
 had an acute exposure that wasn't experienced 

13 
 by the corresponding primes. So it was 

14 
 really, they had some high results. It looked 

15 
 like there was an event they were involved in 

16 
 that wasn't experienced by the prime workers. 

17 
 We thought that would be a good subset to 

18 
 look at in terms of comparison because it 

19 
 would appear that the exposures would not have 

20 
 been representatives or -- excuse me -- the 

21 
 prime exposure distribution would not 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 necessarily be representative of the types of37

2 
 exposures these guys had. 

3 
 And so they were high, but I think 

4 
 it was also the fact that it was just when 

5 
 compared side by side, you could see they were 

6 
 definitely involved in some other work that 

7 
 was unique to their particular operation. 

8 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, see that sort 

9 
 of casts a different thing, too, because there 

10 
 wasn't an a priori determination that they 

11 needed bioassay. 

12 
 MR. STIVER: That just hits the 

13 
 point. We don't have any procedures or 

14 
 policies in place that would set up a 

15 
 framework, at least that we know of, that 

16 
 would set the criteria for who is going to be 

17 
 monitored under what conditions. And so it 

18 
 could very well have been one HP on the fly 

19 
 who was cognizant and realized these guys can 

20 
 be decontaminating and pulling out scrap 

21 
 material that is pretty heavily contaminated. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 We should probably put them on the bioassay.38 

2 
 Did that happen every time there 

3 
 was a dirty job? We don't know. 

4 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Okay. That's 

5 
 helpful. Thank you. 

6 
 DR. LIPSZTEIN: May I step in? 

7 
 This is Joyce Lipsztein. 

8 
 MR. KATZ: Of course, Joyce. 

9 
 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. We have 

10 
 looked at the claimant files of the four 

11 
 people that were analyzed. And if you look at 

12 
 the claimant files, you go into the claimant 

13 
 files, there isn't really an internal 

14 
 monitoring data like we used with regular 

15 workers. 

16 
 For example, one of the workers was 

17 
 employed from September '69 to December '74. 

18 
 The only thing that there is in his internal 

19 
 monitoring data is some sheets of material of 

20 
 union monitoring from '71 from several 

21 workers. That is it, nothing more. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 And even his employment from '6939

2 
 through '74 can only be proved through the 

3 
 affidavit from a colleague of him. So it's 

4 
 not like, you know, the definite proof. Well, 

5 
 that is what he says. He said he was employed 

6 
 from this date to that date. And he has an 

7 
 affidavit from a colleague that will tell I 

8 
 worked with him. And then there is this union 

9 
 monitoring for a lot of workers during some 

10 months in '71. So that's it. 

11 
 So, even for the claimants, we 

12 don't have too much information. 

13 
 MR. STIVER: Joyce, if I could step 

14 
 in again? This is John. What Joyce is 

15 
 talking about is we're not looking right now 

16 
 at the 1969 non-claimants. This is the group 

17 
 of claimants that were also among those 180 or 

18 
 so workers or during that early period from 

19 
 '69 to '85 who had the hard copy records. And 

20 
 these represent the ones that had, I believe, 

21 
 the top four of that group of claimants 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 terms of the excretion rate data. 40 

2 
 And this particular guy Joyce is 

3 
 alluding to also indicated that he was 

4 
 bioassayed on a regular basis every couple of 

5 
 weeks. Yet, during that four-year period of 

6 
 employment, '69 to '73, there are only records 

7 
 for August of 1971. And so that kind of calls 

8 
 into question, you know, the completeness of 

9 
 his bioassay records. And so it is just 

10 
 another kind of unknown that has to be 

11 addressed in one way or another. 

12 
 Either presumptions have to be made 

13 
 or, you know, we have to kind of possibly 

14 
 consider the fact that this guy has an 

15 
 incomplete record and it's not really 

16 indicative of what his true exposures were. 

17 
 Anything else you would like to say 

18 
 about this particular worker, Joyce? Joyce, 

19 are you still there? 

20 
 DR. LIPSZTEIN: You know, urine 

21 
 results were a lot of work. It's not like his 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 bioassay. You know, it's a sheet with41 

2 
 bioassay for a lot of workers in the same 

3 
 date. And many of them have worked during 

4 
 other months and other times. And this 

5 
 particular one says he worked from '69 to '71 

6 
 and we just have data from '71, for one month 

7 
 in 71. So it looks like it's incomplete. 

8 
 I don't have anything to add. You 

9 
 said everything. And in his telephone 

10 
 interview, he says that he collected urine 

11 
 once a week, sometimes twice, every two weeks, 

12 
 and sometimes every three weeks. And we don't 

13 
 have anything. And he worked in '69 also. 

14 
 And he is not among the people that were 

15 monitored in '69 in our list. 

16 
 MR. BARTON: This is Bob Barton. I 

17 
 think that kind of goes along with that 

18 
 earlier point that the only reason we know 

19 
 this guy was monitored, because he happened to 

20 
 be in that list of 939 results that was 

21 
 uncovered with the data capture. I mean, 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 you didn't have that, you wouldn't have42 

2 
 anything. 

3 
 And so, I mean, I understand that 

4 
 that probably represents all that we can get, 

5 
 all that is available to us as far as data is, 

6 
 but it sure looks to me like it is not 

7 
 complete. So you are going to have 

8 
 subcontractor claimants that may have been 

9 
 monitored because they may have had a dirty 

10 
 job, but we are never going to know about it 

11 
 because DOE didn't put together exposure 

12 
 records. So we're not going to see that 

13 
 information in a dose reconstruction setting. 

14 
 So we have to apply the coworker model that 

15 started this whole thing off. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: And the coworker 

17 
 model, at least for the groups that we have 

18 
 looked at, the individual does not appear to 

19 
 be bounding. So what do we do? Where are we 

20 at this point? 

21 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: In essence, this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 is where we've gotten to. And we're looking43 

2 
 at one Class of employees, correct? And this 

3 
 is just construction workers or 

4 
 subcontractors, as they called it? 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that would be 

6 
 something we would want to define carefully, 

7 
 to go through this list of subcontractors. 

8 
 I mean, there are a couple of 

9 
 physicians on there. There are some people 

10 
 who look like AEC or DOE employees who 

11 
 probably worked in the administration 

12 
 building. One is called an administrative 

13 officer. 

14 
 We'd have to be careful about how 

15 
 we define this. And then we also have -- for 

16 
 instance, I think there is a sprinkler 

17 
 repairman, who would have a job a lot like a 

18 
 construction subcontractor probably in terms 

19 
 of his work, that may not be caught on a Class 

20 
 Definition that said like construction trades. 

21 
 And it may require some conversation with DOL 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 about the administration. How can we get this44 

2 
 Class administered the way we think it should 

3 
 be administered, what language to write into 

4 
 the Class Definition if we're going to go that 

5 
 way? 

6 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, I'll be 

7 
 right honest with you. This is one of the 

8 
 struggles that I have been having about --

9 
 yes, know, I know it's not our place as a Work 

10 
 Group or anything else like that to set these 

11 
 boundaries, but we have also got to be able to 

12 
 give them something that they can actually 

13 implement. 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I think it is 

15 kind of our job to decide --

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- where are the 

18 
 boundaries of infeasibility if that is where 

19 
 we are going here. I don't want to presume 

20 
 anything. If that is where we go here, what 

21 
 are the boundaries of infeasibility? And can 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 we describe them in a fashion that the45 

2 
 Department of Labor can then administer it the 

3 
 way we think, you know, in accordance with 

4 
 those boundaries? So that may be difficult 

5 
 yet. 

6 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. Some of these 

7 
 are pretty obvious that they would be 

8 
 included, but, like you say, I mean, you have 

9 
 got other -- and then others would be clearly 

10 
 excluded, but there is kind of a gray area 

11 
 sometimes. Like you say, an instrument 

12 
 mechanic, he could very well be going into a 

13 
 dirty area and refitting in a very dirty 

14 environment. 

15 
 So the implementation in the Class 

16 Definition certainly is going to be tricky. 

17 
 MR. ROLFES: The other thing I 

18 
 wanted to point out also is that some of these 

19 
 individuals don't have more than 250 days of 

20 employment. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So by the numbers, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 you can only have a few months. One has one46 

2 
 day. 

3 
 MR. ROLFES: Quite a number. 

4 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, there are. Bob 

5 
 did an analysis on that. What was it, about 

6 
 60 percent of them are a year? 

7 
 MR. BARTON: Yes, a rank order. 

8 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. Yes. I said 

9 
 that's what I said last time. There was a 

10 graph that I showed with the curves. 

11 
 MR. BARTON: There are a fair 

12 
 number of -- and, again, I was doing kind of a 

13 
 focused review with any job that I thought 

14 
 could possibly be subcontractors. I mean, 

15 
 we're not saying everyone here was only on 

16 
 site for a few weeks. I don't want that 

17 
 notion to be out there. There are certainly 

18 


19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: There are a number 

20 
 that --

21 MR. BARTON: There are a number 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that -- 47 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- were out there 

3 
 for a long time. 

4 
 MR. BARTON: -- that would not meet 

5 
 the 250-day criteria, but most of them I think 

6 
 -- because, you know, maybe they were only on 

7 
 site for a month or two but then, you know, a 

8 
 couple of years later, they were back on site 

9 
 for a month or two. And you add up all of 

10 those time periods and maybe --

11 
 MR. KATZ: Well, it doesn't really 

12 matter because --

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. It doesn't 

14 
 matter. 

15 
 MR. KATZ: -- at the end of the 

16 
 day, that is not an issue for whether you add 

17 
 a Class or not. It doesn't really matter. 

18 You don't need to factor that in. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: That is what the 

20 250 days is. 

21 
 MR. KATZ: Well, yes. All I'm 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 saying is you never know. Some of these48 

2 
 people may have worked at another site. That 

3 
 might work out for them if they have another 

4 
 site that is an SEC. But, anyway, it's not 

5 
 really a consideration for whether you add a 

6 
 Class or not. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: My question --

8 
 and I just wanted to clarify while I have got 

9 
 all of you in here because I'll tell you right 

10 
 now I am proposing a Class where the 

11 construction appears from, actually --

12 
 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry. Someone on 

13 
 the line hasn't muted their phone. They just 

14 
 said O-R- A-L or something like that. But, 

15 
 anyway, whoever you are, just if you would 

16 
 mute your phone? If you don't have a mute 

17 
 button, if you would press *6, that will mute 

18 your phone. Thanks. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I am looking for 

20 
 the construction workers because I want to 

21 
 separate the construction builders of 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 from when the facility went hot. It went hot49 

2 
 in what, '54? 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It depends on what 

4 
 you are talking about. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. They were 

6 
 probably doing things in '52 in the pilot 

7 
 plant, I think. 

8 
 MR. STIVER: '51, actually, they 

9 
 started receiving material. 

10 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Started receiving 

11 material in '51? 

12 
 MR. ROLFES: I think some of the 

13 drum K65 materials were sent. 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So the K65 

15 
 materials I think would have just been dumped 

16 in the silos, right? 

17 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. The pilot plant 

18 
 was doing some experimental work. They were 

19 
 handling the uranium in '51, but the other 

20 
 plants, the refinery and so forth, weren't 

21 
 online until, weren't completed until '53. 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 '53 on, you've got the process is in place,50

2 
 materials are being pushed through. And so 

3 
 there's potential for exposure at that point. 

4 
 But I would say prior to '53, the 

5 
 construction was being performed in 

6 
 essentially a pristine environment outside of 

7 
 the pilot plant. So I think that those 

8 
 bookend years would probably not be 

9 
 appropriate to include. So basically '53 to 

10 
 '83 is what I am seeing at this point based on 

11 what the data tells me. 

12 
 MR. BARTON: I think one important 

13 
 point here, though -- and we're kind of 

14 
 talking construction versus non-construction. 

15 We're really talking about subcontractors. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: We are talking 

17 subcontractors. 

18 
 MR. BARTON: Because the 

19 
 delineation seems to be whether you worked for 

20 
 NLO or not, whether you were involved 

21 
 routinely in the bioassay program 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 
 

-- 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that information available. Now, it is going51
 

2 
 to be mostly construction workers, but there 

3 
 are also NLO construction workers that would 

4 
 have records. 

5 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. We need to make 

6 
 that distinction, that this is -- the 

7 
 subcontractors are the ones who are not on a 

8 
 routine bioassay. So it wasn't the focus on 

9 


10 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So we are 

11 
 looking at '53 to '83. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we're 

13 
 starting, really, on '53. And then we should 

14 
 next talk about the end date. 

15 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. The end dates, 

16 
 what I'm seeing, 1983 is kind of in a 

17 
 transitional period. You've got about 38 

18 
 individuals, 164 results. Certainly '84 and 

19 
 '85 are, for all intents and purposes, 

20 
 indistinguishable from '86 in terms of the 

21 
 number of personnel in the samples per person. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 And, having taken a look at that52

2 
 data, it seems to be pretty well represented 

3 
 throughout the year. '83 seems to be more 

4 
 loaded towards the end of the year, 

5 
 November-December time frame. I don't know if 

6 
 there's much prior to June or July. Bob, have 

7 
 you looked at '83 in detail? 

8 
 MR. BARTON: No. I think it was 

9 
 later in the year, though. 

10 
 MR. STIVER: It was kind of more 

11 
 weighted towards the tail end of the year. 

12 
 You kind of see a progression of 

13 implementation over time here. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: When did 

15 
 Westinghouse actually officially take over 

16 after '85? 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: December of '85. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: But we saw in 

19 
 the earlier years, the '83 to '85, that the 

20 bioassay program starts --

21 
 MR. STIVER: You can kind of see 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 start to ramp up here in this table here. '8353 

2 
 is kind of in a transitional area. So we 

3 
 might need to look at that in a little bit 

4 
 more detail in terms of the 

5 
 representativeness. A first approximation, I 

6 
 think we would be looking at '53 to '83. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: If I remember my 

8 
 history, '83 was probably the year that NLO 

9 
 made the papers and there was a lot more focus 

10 on the site. 

11 MR. STIVER: Yes. So that --

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that was 

13 
 the year of the Plant 9 dust release. Was 

14 that '83? 

15 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: '82? 

17 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I think it was 

18 
 '82, Stu. They were starting to see the 

19 results. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I mean, up 

21 
 until the Plant 9 dust release, 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 became big news -- I'm sorry. I'm speaking54 

2 
 from history here, speaking from my conflicted 

3 
 knowledge here, but up until the dust 

4 
 collector release in the early '80s, -- I 

5 
 can't remember what year it was -- Fernald was 

6 
 pretty, you know, unknown. It was pretty 

7 
 anonymous around here. And then when that hit 

8 
 the news, it was all of sudden a big deal and 

9 
 there was a lot more focus, a lot more folks 

10 
 on the site from the Department of Energy as 

11 well. And so there was a lot more emphasis. 

12 
 And so it is not surprising that 

13 
 sometime around there, they started to pay 

14 
 more attention to construction workers and 

15 
 getting them in the bioassay program and 

16 
 things like that. That is kind of consistent 

17 
 with my memory of the history of the place. 

18 That was very early in my tenure there. 

19 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, it seems to me 

20 
 reasonable given the timelines of the activity 

21 taking place. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. That would55 

2 
 have accounted for the increased activity then 

3 
 prior to Westinghouse taking over. And then 

4 
 once Westinghouse took over, a really 

5 
 different regime took place and a different 

6 
 mindset about how to deal with, you know, 

7 
 uranium plants. 

8 
 MR. BARTON: Looking at the 1983 

9 
 data, it's almost all in the August to October 

10 
 time frame. So you have three months, really. 

11 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, yes. So no 

12 
 question there. Yes. Kind of my sense is 

13 
 that it was weighted towards the tail end of 

14 
 the year. I would say, you know, until we 

15 
 really look into it in a little more detail, 

16 
 it's kind of a first approximation. '53 

17 
 through '83 would be the years to be looking 

18 at here for subcontractors. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And this would be 

20 
 for subcontractors. 

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Non-NLO. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. STIVER: Not NLO. Basically in56 

2 
 subcontractors, you remember NLO was a prime 

3 
 contractor. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. 

5 
 MR. STIVER: So everybody who is a 

6 
 non-NLO employee would be those to be 

7 
 considered. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Does that 

9 
 sit with everybody okay? I mean, you can look 

10 
 down the job categories here. I mean, there 

11 
 is an administrative officer who looks like he 

12 worked for the Atomic Energy Commission to --

13 
 MR. STIVER: There is a draftsman 

14 and designer who was in --

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think those were 

16 probably NLO. 

17 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. The rest of 

18 
 them, you go down here, millwrights, 

19 ironworkers. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I think I 

21 
 have very few issues with the names 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 list. 57 

2 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: But there are one 

4 
 or two that strike me as odd. 

5 
 MR. STIVER: Spectrographer. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That's probably an 

7 
 NLO employee. 

8 
 MR. BARTON: In my experience, when 

9 
 I was trying to find a sample of subcontractor 

10 
 claimants, I found that that information was 

11 
 usually readily available in the Department of 

12 Labor files that they --

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. You know it 

14 
 was a subcontractor. 

15 MR. STIVER: Yes, yes, right. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Labor can tell who 

17 
 is a subcontractor. They have already told us 

18 that. 

19 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. So the issue 

20 
 really isn't that big of a deal. I mean, 

21 you've got the people. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We know who58 

2 
 the --

3 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And DOL has told us 

5 
 they can tell who the subcontractors are. And 

6 
 it's pretty clear in the claim files. The 

7 
 question is if you make it subcontractors, you 

8 
 are going to put in people -- I mean, the 

9 
 physicians were subcontractors. 

10 MR. STIVER: Clerks. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The clerk might be 

12 
 an NLO or might be a subcontractor. There is 

13 
 a person who I'm pretty sure is an AEC 

14 
 employee. There might be another I saw on 

15 
 here that might be an AEC employee who 

16 
 probably worked in the administration 

17 building. 

18 
 MR. KATZ: But those wouldn't be 

19 subcontractors, right, AEC employees? 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: No. Well, I guess 

21 AEC would not 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. KATZ: Right. 59 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: These would not be. 

3 
 MR. KATZ: So you could specify not 

4 
 including physicians, for example. You could 

5 
 actually put that in your definition. 

6 
 MR. STIVER: You have a --

7 
 MR. KATZ: Right? Is there any 

8 
 reason you couldn't exclude physicians? 

9 
 MS. LIN: Typically we don't do --

10 
 MR. KATZ: No, we don't, but, I 

11 mean, that would be a relatively easy --

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if it will 

13 make any easier, just leave them in. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I would rather 

15 
 make sure that we capture the people. I 

16 
 understand what you are saying, Ted. But I 

17 
 really don't -- and I apologize. I've got a 

18 migraine that's killing me. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: Do you want some 

20 medicine? 

21 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I took some. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 That's why I apologize if I'm a little bit60

2 
 distant. My head is just throbbing. 

3 
 But, anyway, my thing was looking 

4 
 at this -- and I dove into a lot of this and, 

5 
 Stu, I'm at the same thing with yours. 

6 
 Looking at some of the people, but I am more 

7 
 worried about the questionable ones, the 

8 
 instrument and this and that because we had a 

9 
 lot of instrument people going into the site. 

10 
 I would much rather push it towards a 

11 subcontractor. 

12 MR. STIVER: To be inclusive. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Just to be 

14 
 conclusive. You know, it is going to come 

15 
 down to I think there is still the judgment of 

16 
 it. But myself, I would push for '53 to '83 

17 
 on non-NLO subcontractors is what I would -- I 

18 
 looked at the non-subcontractor construction 

19 
 workers. And still some of the people that I 

20 
 think you would worry about would still fall 

21 
 into it. So I'd rather be more conclusive 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 than anything. I just -- 61 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I think if 

3 
 you try to get too -- you might leave out 

4 
 people you don't want to leave out. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. And 

6 
 that's my biggest worry. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: You wouldn't want 

8 
 to say, contractors in the construction trade 

9 
 or with construction trade job titles. You 

10 wouldn't want to say that. 

11 
 MR. STIVER: You wouldn't want to 

12 
 exclude anyone unless you were absolutely 

13 certain that they --

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And, to be honest, 

15 
 maybe the physicians took tours in the 

16 facility --

17 
 MR. STIVER: It could very well be. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- spent time out 

19 there. 

20 
 MR. STIVER: Or secretaries, for 

21 example. They could --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: They could -- 62 

2 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: They could have 

4 
 been set up out back if they were 

5 
 subcontractors. I don't know. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So I guess my 

7 
 suggestion -- and this comes -- Paul, you are 

8 
 on the line, correct? 

9 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I am on the line. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: My suggestion is 

11 
 that we push for '53 to '83 for non-NLO 

12 
 subcontractors for an SEC. Any questions that 

13 you have on that? 

14 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, not really. I 

15 
 think, you know, we had this problem on many 

16 
 sites. I think of the GE site in Cincinnati. 

17 
 There's just not a way of excluding the 

18 
 people that you know intuitively shouldn't be 

19 
 excluded, but you don't have any way of 

20 identifying. 

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean, we know63 

2 
 that there are going to be people -- in a 

3 
 sense, it's sort of unfair -- in the other 

4 
 direction that really shouldn't be there but 

5 
 you don't know how to identify them. So in 

6 
 order to take care of the ones that should be 

7 
 included, you have to err on that side. And 

8 
 you are going to throw in some that are sort 

9 
 of getting a free ride is how I would explain 

10 it. 

11 
 But I think unless somebody can 

12 
 come up with a creative way of filtering 

13 
 these, you will have the same old problem that 

14 
 we had in many sites. We just don't have a 

15 way of excluding those that should be. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Paul, I can 

17 
 personally testify to you I have personally 

18 
 left it. This is the only way that I can see 

19 
 to be able to get the people that really are 

20 
 deserving. Yes, sometimes maybe in what you 

21 
 said it could be a free ride, but I would 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 to be able to bring this before the Board in64

2 
 the July meeting if there is no problem with 

3 
 that. So I am looking for you and Phil on 

4 
 this. 

5 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I would support it. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. I just 

7 
 wanted to make sure that we --

8 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, we still have 

9 
 to define that time frame. Is somebody going 

10 
 to go back and do that and clarify? In other 

11 
 words, is it at the time of the contract 

12 change or --

13 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, it's 

14 
 actually two years before the contract change, 

15 
 but on the paperwork, if you look into it --

16 
 and Stu kind of -- there was a release on 

17 
 Fernald which started getting them a lot of 

18 
 credit. I believe it was mid '82. And after 

19 
 that started to happen, we see the bioassays 

20 start to ramp up. 

21 
 The beginning of '84 time 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 we started to see a lot more of these people65

2 
 having bioassays, speaking of contracting 

3 
 personnel. So what I have --

4 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: You have to go to 

5 
 the top end of the ramp, I think, when it is 

6 
 fully ramped is where you have to do the 

7 
 cutoff probably. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, SC&A --

9 
 and I guess I have tasked them. You have 

10 already done the workup on this. 

11 
 MR. STIVER: This is John. As I 

12 
 was saying, we are looking at '83 as kind of a 

13 
 transitional year. And I think Brad and Stu 

14 
 indicated that Plant 9 dust release got a lot 

15 
 of press and probably caused some soul 

16 
 searching or certainly at least an impetus to 

17 
 improve the worker protection and safety 

18 program there. 

19 
 And so I think what you're seeing 

20 
 is in '83 a response to those events. You are 

21 
 seeing an increase in the number of workers 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 who were monitored and the number of samples66

2 
 in total, but you don't really see it reach a 

3 
 steady state until about 1984. 

4 
 And also when you look at the data 

5 
 in '83, almost all of it is backloaded to 

6 
 August-December time frame in '83. So you 

7 
 don't really have a good representation for 

8 
 the whole year there. So as kind of a first 

9 
 approximation, what I had recommended to Brad 

10 would be '53 to '83 inclusive. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Because in '84, 

12 
 we see a broader spectrum of bioassay and it 

13 
 gives it a better result. So my personal 

14 
 feeling, Paul, was this was when we started to 

15 
 see the better bioassay program. So that is 

16 what I am proposing. 

17 
 But we can check into it deeper if 

18 
 you'd like, but, for all intents and purposes, 

19 I was looking inclusive from '53 to '83. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's through '83. 

21 
 MR. KATZ: Right. Through '83, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 yes. 67 

2 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. It's through 

3 
 '83. And I guess my only question was I 

4 
 think, John Stiver, you said it was sorted or 

5 
 -- there's never a clear-cut cutoff point, I 

6 
 guess. It could be December. It could be 

7 
 November. But, just to be assured, you're 

8 
 saying, okay, let's use January 1st as the --

9 
 or December 31st as the cut point. Is that 

10 correct? 

11 
 MR. STIVER: I would say it's 

12 
 probably -- without trying to get too detailed 

13 
 and unwarranted levels of detail, I would say 

14 that would be a good choice. 

15 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. We are pretty 

16 
 confident that we have reached the top of the 

17 
 ramp at that point. It may have been somewhat 

18 
 sooner, but that would certainly assure that 

19 
 we are at the point. Is that what you are 

20 saying? 

21 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I guess can we get68 

2 
 some feedback at NIOSH? Are you guys 

3 
 comfortable with that to the extent that NIOSH 

4 
 can be comfortable? 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Dr. Ziemer, 

6 
 it has been a long time. I haven't been 

7 
 comfortable since I took this job, but --

8 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. That's why I 

9 
 added that in. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that 

11 
 given the information, we want to make sure 

12 
 that we're clear. I think we have just a 

13 
 little bit more work to do, which is to state 

14 
 pretty clearly the bases for concluding this. 

15 
 And I believe it is a basis that would not 

16 
 cause too much heartache in some areas of 

17 
 NIOSH. All decisions for this program have 

18 caused some heartache somewhere. 

19 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I understand. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think this would 

21 
 not cause too much heartache. And I think 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 I can start here, and then people can69 

2 
 supplement because I kind of want to talk a 

3 
 little bit about what I believe is being 

4 
 concluded by the Work Group here. And that is 

5 
 that the information that we can obtain on 

6 
 subcontractors -- and we're talking about 

7 
 their internal exposures here -- prior to 1984 

8 
 is not -- a) it is not complete. We are not 

9 
 confident it is complete. 

10 
 Were we confident that we could 

11 
 have every piece of data and all of these 

12 
 subcontractors who came in have been monitored 

13 -- well, that's not true. 

14 
 You know, one of the main arguments 

15 
 -- I'm going to start back over my recap here. 

16 
 A big argument is that we have a population 

17 
 of subcontractors who were exposed to work 

18 
 that would not be described by the coworker 

19 
 approach. Their exposures were higher than 

20 
 the coworker approach. Those particular 

21 
 workers, at least the ones in 1969, 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 monitored. 70 

2 
 It doesn't seem to us that we 

3 
 captured all of the data from subcontractors. 

4 
 We had to rely on data capture to get 

5 
 bioassay information from subcontractors. And 

6 
 there seemed to be a pretty decent likelihood 

7 
 that we didn't capture it all. 

8 
 If I understood Joyce correctly a 

9 
 while ago, one of our other populations of 

10 
 workers where we had the high five people, 

11 
 where we found the hard copy, we really only 

12 
 found a little bit of data from a guy who 

13 
 worked there for five years. And so that 

14 
 would lend credence to the fact that our data 

15 
 capture did not capture everything that maybe 

16 it should have captured. 

17 
 Given the fact, then, that, at 

18 
 least in some instances, construction workers 

19 
 could have been exposed to having exposure 

20 
 situations that are not described by the 

21 
 coworker and that we don't feel that we can 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 consistently find the monitoring information71

2 
 necessarily for those people, we just don't 

3 
 feel we have a technique for reconstructing 

4 
 that we can feel confident we can reconstruct 

5 
 in construction worker subcontractors, 

6 
 subcontractors' exposures, internal exposures 

7 
 based on information at hand. 

8 
 We don't think the coworker model 

9 
 can be counted on because of what we have 

10 
 observed in terms of some construction or 

11 
 subcontractor exposures. And we don't think 

12 
 their own records can be counted on because we 

13 
 don't know that they are complete for people 

14 who were exposed. Is that kind of --

15 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: There might be more 

17 to it than that. 

18 
 MR. STIVER: I think that is a 

19 pretty good recap. 

20 
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I agree. That 

21 is a good recap 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer.72

2 
 Can I ask one more question? Stu, did Fernald 

3 
 use work permits in those days for the 

4 
 subcontractors? 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I wasn't 

6 
 there in those days, but --

7 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. But do you 

8 
 know whether they did? 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: We don't know a 

10 work permit program at that time. 

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Later on, there was 

13 
 a work permit program, but I don't know that 

14 
 there was one. I don't think we have seen any 

15 
 evidence of it during the time period we are 

16 talking about. 

17 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. I have seen 

18 
 evidence of it in the late '80s. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

20 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. But if there 

21 
 had been a work permit program, then you would 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 have a basis for someone making an evaluation;73

2 
 for example, that bioassay was not needed on 

3 
 this job, number one. 

4 
 Number two, if he completes the 

5 
 job, there would be a verification that, in 

6 
 fact, either based on air sampling or other 

7 
 monitoring that, in fact, it was a good 

8 
 decision, but in reacting to that, you don't 

9 
 have anything to back up the absence of this 

10 information. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I don't think 

12 
 we have found any evidence of a work permit 

13 
 program during the period we're talking about. 

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. Good. 

15 
 MR. STIVER: Okay. So from here on 

16 
 out, then, Brad, how do you see us proceeding 

17 
 as far as defining any more work than is 

18 
 involved in the time period? Do you want us 

19 
 to take a look at the earlier years a little 

20 
 bit more in depth or are you comfortable with 

21 this definition 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Myself, I74 

2 
 wouldn't go into a great depth to it, but when 

3 
 we present this to the Board, I want to be 

4 
 able to explain to them why we have the start 

5 
 date and the end date and be able to give them 

6 
 a good feeling of why and why we picked these 

7 
 because I know that we have had several other 

8 
 things thrown out. 

9 
 And one of the things I want to 

10 
 make sure is because, as you guys said in the 

11 
 earlier years, the pilot plants were going. 

12 
 And we did have uranium there, but I don't 

13 
 think that we had the construction workers 

14 
 like we did after the process was up and 

15 
 running. So I think that we are pretty good 

16 from that standpoint. 

17 
 I just would like to be able to 

18 
 make sure that we have done due diligence on 

19 
 it, that we're not starting too early, not 

20 
 start -- myself, I feel good about that '83. 

21 
 I'll be personally honest with that. The '53, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that's where I've got my questions. 75 

2 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. That is what I 

3 
 was thinking, too. Is it '53 or '54? Maybe 

4 
 we could do a little bit more research on that 

5 
 aspect. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Let me explain 

7 
 to you my feelings of why because, as I have 

8 
 seen in all of these plants, when they first 

9 
 started getting these pilot plants set up and 

10 
 running, invariably they would find parts in 

11 
 systems that aren't working right and they 

12 have to reconstruct them. 

13 
 I just want to make sure that we 

14 
 get the earlier years. The later years, it 

15 
 shows on paper here where we start to see the 

16 
 ramp-ups. My focus, Phil and Paul, is that we 

17 
 just make sure that the start date is good. 

18 
 And I guess I would ask SC&A to look into that 

19 a little bit, not a --

20 
 MR. STIVER: We can do a little 

21 
 more in a search. It doesn't need to be a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 White Paper or anything but certainly it is76

2 
 kind of a --

3 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right, to be 

4 
 able to make sure --

5 
 MR. STIVER: We have done the due 

6 
 diligence. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: -- that that 

8 
 year is there so that when we bring it before 

9 
 the Board, that we can bring a level of 

10 
 comfort to them that we have checked it out 

11 
 and this is why we have gone with these dates. 

12 
 MR. KATZ: Brad, are you going to 

13 have SC&A do a presentation for this? 

14 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: A short 

15 presentation. 

16 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. And then just, 

17 
 Phil, you need to speak on the record. You 

18 have nodded your head but just --

19 
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: No. I am in 

20 total agreement --

21 MR. KATZ: Fine. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: -- just because77 

2 
 the early years, in particular, like Brad 

3 
 says, I have never heard of one of these 

4 
 facilities come online without problems. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

6 
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: So where were 

7 
 these subcontractors? Were they in there 

8 
 helping make those adjustments? You can't 

9 
 find that data. 

10 
 MR. KATZ: Right. And I only 

11 
 meant, really, speak on the record your 

12 support for this motion --

13 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: -- from the Work Group. 

15 That's all, in general. 

16 
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, I am 

17 supportive. 

18 MR. KATZ: Thank you. That's all. 

19 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Perhaps before we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 get to the next topic, can we take a comfort78

2 
 break? 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

4 
 MR. STIVER: That was my next 

5 
 motion. 

6 
 (Laughter.) 

7 
 MR. KATZ: But staff can't make 

8 
 motions. 

9 
 MR. STIVER: Strongly suggest it. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Let's take a 

11 comfort break. What? Ten minutes? 

12 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. Recharge the 

13 caffeine. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. All right. So 

15 
 ten minutes. It's about 10:10 right now. So 

16 
 about 10:20, we'll get going again. I'm just 

17 going to put the phone on mute. 

18 
 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

19 
 matter went off the record at 10:09 a.m. and 

20 went back on the record at 10:23 a.m.) 

21 
 MR. KATZ: We are back on line, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 Fernald Work Group. 79 

2 
 (Roll call.) 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Paul, you 

5 
 heard our path forward on this about the 

6 
 earlier years when we left off. Did you hear 

7 
 what we were doing? 

8 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I did. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. And SC&A 

10 
 will get with this before the Board meeting, 

11 
 but tentatively this is what we are pushing 

12 unless we see some more information. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Understood. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. John, 

15 
 I'll turn it back over to you for the next 

16 issue or NIOSH. 

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I was just 

18 
 going to ask. At the March meeting, I mean, 

19 
 we had essentially three things we were 

20 
 talking about. We were talking about the 

21 subcontractor, the one we just did --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. 80 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- talking about 

3 
 the early thorium DWE. And we were also 

4 
 talking about the interpretation of the in 

5 
 vivo from '89 or something --

6 
 MR. STIVER: '79 to '88. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: '79 to '88. And we 

8 
 provide a lot of information on '79 to '88. 

9 
 Is there more discussion there? That seemed 

10 to me to be kind of solid. 

11 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. This is a 

12 
 discussion mainly more from a mechanistic 

13 
 standpoint. I think it's a Site Profile-type 

14 thing. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So we can 

16 leave that until the end. 

17 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. That is what I 

18 was planning to do. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: All right. 

20 
 MR. STIVER: We will talk about 

21 that towards the 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 But why don't we go ahead now and81

2 
 talk about the thorium coworker model in the 

3 
 early years? This is the 1954 or 1953 to 

4 
 1967, when the thorium coworker model is 

5 
 dependent on these daily weighted exposures 

6 
 that were taken throughout the plant by the 

7 
 health and safety laboratory. And this has 

8 
 been the ongoing topic, gosh, for about five 

9 
 years. 

10 There are now five different 

11 
 revisions to the coworker model. The latest 

12 
 revision you guys produced in response to some 

13 
 of our concerns at the March meeting resembles 

14 
 very much the previous revision, which was 

15 
 produced in October of 2010. That particular 

16 
 model is the one size fits all-type bounding 

17 model. 

18 
 Let me just kind of back-step to 

19 
 revision 3 for a minute. That particular 

20 
 revision basically assigns the highest DWE, 

21 
 daily weighted exposure, for any 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 building for that particular year to all82 

2 
 workers, that building and that year 

3 
 combination, with a geometric standard 

4 
 deviation, the GSD, of five. 

5 
 And the crucial aspects of our 

6 
 acceptance or one of the aspects of it was the 

7 
 fact that the uncertainty in the measurements 

8 
 had been taken into account based on the model 

9 
 relied fairly heavily on an uncertainty 

10 
 analysis produced by Dan Strom at PNL back in 

11 
 2008. And they looked at this very issue, 

12 
 about six different plants, in the earlier 

13 
 years, '48 to '53, I believe, if I'm not 

14 mistaken. 

15 
 And they factored in just about 

16 
 every type of uncertainty. And there are five 

17 
 different types of uncertainty they looked at. 

18 
 One thing they didn't look at obviously was 

19 
 the representativeness of a particular DWE to 

20 
 other workers. There is no way you can 

21 
 possibly do that. So they 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 uncertainty and the variables that actually83

2 
 went into developing the DWE. 

3 
 And they came out of that with this 

4 
 recommendation that, you know, if you don't 

5 
 actually do your own uncertainty analysis for 

6 
 a set of data, certainly I think the GSDs 

7 
 range from about 4 to 8, 5 being -- I think 

8 
 the 95th percentile was a little over 4. So 

9 
 they recommended a GSD of 5, and that's what 

10 NIOSH did. 

11 
 And so we were okay with that. We 

12 
 said with one caveat that you need to be able 

13 
 to demonstrate that you can indeed place 

14 
 workers in a given plant in a given year. And 

15 
 Bob Barton did a White Paper last fall where 

16 
 he looked at that very issue through all the 

17 
 data. And the long and the short of it, it 

18 
 turns out that no, you can't place workers in 

19 
 a time period in a particular building. There 

20 just isn't the data available to do that. 

21 
 And so NIOSH went back to the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 drawing board and came back with another84 

2 
 revision. And we have had some problems with 

3 
 it, mainly related to an unwarranted level of 

4 
 granularity that was implied. So it came back 

5 
 out with revision 5. 

6 
 And revision 5 basically follows 

7 
 revision 3, only with a couple of differences, 

8 
 probably the biggest being that, rather than 

9 
 trying to place workers in a given building, 

10 
 we basically are going to take -- look at all 

11 
 of the DWEs for that year for all the 

12 
 buildings and assign the highest value to all 

13 the workers. 

14 
 So this is a one-size-fits-all 

15 
 model with one fewer degree of freedom than in 

16 
 the revision 3 and again with the same caveat 

17 that the GSD of 5 would apply. 

18 
 Now, there are two aspects to this 

19 
 that we were kind of concerned with. The 

20 
 first one has to do with data completeness. 

21 And this is for the period of 1964 to 1967. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 Now, if you look at the -- Bob85

2 
 Morris from ORAU had put out a thorium 

3 
 timeline back in like 2008, which was 

4 
 incorporated into revision 3 of the coworker 

5 
 model. I don't know if you have revision 3 

6 
 available. It was posted along with all the 

7 
 other papers regarding action item 10, which 

8 
 is the DWE model. 

9 
 But on page 2 of that, you have 

10 
 figure 1, which basically shows which plants 

11 
 were involved in thorium production during the 

12 
 years '54 through '67. And then down on page 

13 
 12, you have a list of the available DWEs for 

14 
 those particular years and those particular 

15 
 plants. And for '54 all the way up to '63, 

16 
 DWEs are indeed available for all of the 

17 plants in which thorium was being processed. 

18 
 However, for '64 through '67, we 

19 
 have DWE data for Plant 1, which is the 

20 
 sampling plant. They basically prepared 

21 
 samples, ground them up to a uniform particle 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 size, drumming operations, so forth, things86

2 
 like that, to send on to the refinery for 

3 
 subsequent steps. 

4 
 And then Plant 8 in 1966, it was 

5 
 one year Plant 8 was involved in thorium 

6 
 production. And there is DWE data for that 

7 
 plant as well. However, for the pilot plant, 

8 
 where a lot of thorium-related activities were 

9 
 taking place, for '64 through '67, there are 

10 no data, no DWE data. 

11 
 And so our concern was, well, you 

12 
 know, you have got an incomplete data set. So 

13 
 how do you know that the exposures in the 

14 
 pilot plant weren't necessarily higher in 

15 
 Plant 1 than Plant 8? And without the data, 

16 
 there is just no way to ascertain that. I 

17 
 mean, you might be able to build a case of, 

18 
 well, you know, based on the process knowledge 

19 
 of what was going on in those plants, we feel 

20 that Plant 1 would be bounding. 

21 
 But when you go back to the thorium 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 timeline -- I don't know if you have that87

2 
 available. It's figure 1 on page 2. It's a 

3 
 nice little chart here for each of the -- it's 

4 
 a timeline for all the different plants and 

5 
 all the different activities that were taking 

6 
 place. And plant --

7 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Excuse me, John. 

8 
 Hang on. What document are you looking at 

9 
 right now? I want to make sure I'm on the 

10 same page. 

11 
 MR. STIVER: I am now looking at a 

12 
 document called "FMPC Thorium Timeline" by 

13 Robert Morris in February of 2008. 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. The file 

15 
 title, Paul, is "White Paper on FMPC DWE 

16 Reports, Rev. 03" from October --

17 
 MR. STIVER: Actually, that has 

18 summary data, though. I'm trying to --

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: You're looking at a 

20 different one. 

21 
 MR. STIVER: I'm 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 source data. Really, you don't have to pull88 

2 
 this up right now, but the point being the 

3 
 pilot plant -- there are a lot of activities 

4 
 going on during this time period. There was 

5 
 thorium melting and casting. There was 

6 
 purification, solvent extraction, purification 

7 
 of feed, thorium oxide. 

8 
 Let's see what else was going on 

9 
 here. Gel production. The thoria-dense 

10 
 production was going on. So there are quite a 

11 
 few things happening in this time frame in the 

12 plant, the pilot plant. 

13 
 And whereas Plant 1, there is a not 

14 
 a lot going on. And basically also based on 

15 
 the interview with a couple of site former 

16 
 employees who were experts in the process that 

17 
 was taking place, it says right here in the 

18 
 annotations that interviews provide a basis 

19 
 for the assumption that relatively small 

20 
 exposure to thorium may have occurred in Plant 

21 
 1 at any time thorium was produced elsewhere 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 and had to be safe. And that's borne out by89 

2 
 the levels of the DWEs provided in revision 3. 

3 
 So our concern here is that you 

4 
 have got a lot of activities going on in the 

5 
 pilot plant, one of which, this casting and 

6 
 melting, is known to be a very high, real 

7 
 dirty, dust-intensive process based on what we 

8 
 know about Plant 9 in 1955, which is going to 

9 
 be a topic here in a minute. 

10 
 So I guess our concern here is that 

11 
 you've got certainly a potential for much 

12 
 larger exposures in the pilot plant, but we've 

13 
 got no data for it. So what do we do at this 

14 
 point? So I throw that out there for 

15 discussion. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. And I 

17 
 have a little trouble keeping straight the 

18 
 various information I have received on this 

19 
 topic, that there is actually some additional 

20 
 data. I was looking at the summary, the 

21 
 Morris, the White Paper, on it. That gives 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 DWEs by plant. And down toward the bottom of90 

2 
 it, it has the DWE by plant from '54 through 

3 
 '67. 

4 
 And for the pilot plant from '64 

5 
 through '67, it describes using the 95th 

6 
 percentile of 18 air samples collected 

7 
 apparently in 19--

8 
 MR. STIVER: '77. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- 1967. 

10 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, that's right. 

11 '67. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Nineteen 

13 sixty-seven. 

14 MR. STIVER: Yes. '77 --

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, '77 being the 

16 DWE or the 97th percentile. 

17 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, there is 

19 
 apparently other thorium information 

20 
 air-sampling data that we have found. There 

21 
 is some thorium air-sampling data from 1964 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 where there was air sample data taken and91

2 
 there were DWE studies done on two specific 

3 
 jobs which were described in 1964 as being the 

4 
 two jobs that are chronically high-dust jobs. 

5 
 And so there is a DWE study. And I 

6 
 am hoping someone can point us toward that. 

7 
 MR. STIVER: Nineteen sixty-four in 

8 
 the pilot plant? 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And there 

10 
 were two jobs identified as having chronically 

11 
 high air dust. And there are DWE studies on 

12 those two jobs. 

13 
 MR. ROLFES: Yes. Let's see. 

14 Stokes furnace operator I think. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That was one of 

16 
 them. 

17 
 MR. ROLFES: That has been 

18 
 proposed. I'm trying to find the other one. 

19 
 I don't know. Maybe Karin. Karin Jessen, are 

20 you on the line and able to help? 

21 
 MS. JESSEN: Yes. There are air 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 samples for 1964, '65, and '67 in the pilot92

2 
 plant but no DWE reports. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, what was 

4 
 described about '64? There were two, like the 

5 
 Stokes furnace operator and something else. 

6 
 There was some sort of study about their 

7 
 exposure, right, from '64? 

8 
 MS. JESSEN: I believe there was --

9 
 I've got like three documents here. So I'm 

10 
 trying to find which one it was. Give me a 

11 few minutes if you don't mind. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

13 
 MR. ROLFES: Okay. I found an 

14 
 email here. This is out of the Fernald 

15 
 thorium worker location issue, consolidated 

16 
 final revision, from February of 2013. There 

17 
 is a little excerpt that I will read, "The 

18 
 second item to note also concerns the pilot 

19 
 plant. The maximum unweighted air 

20 
 concentration from 1967 was used in Morris 

21 
 2010. Since it wasn't feasible to combine 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 weighted and unweighted data, the search of93

2 
 the Site Research Database for additional DWE 

3 
 data was conducted. Ross 1964 is not a full 

4 
 DWE study, but it contains 1964 thorium DWE 

5 
 data for the only two jobs in areas that 

6 
 exceeded the National Lead of Ohio 

7 
 concentration guide at the time of 100 dpm per 

8 
 cubic meter." 

9 
 And these two jobs, Stokes furnace 

10 
 operator and briquetting operator, were noted 

11 
 as the only ones that consistently generate 

12 
 high air dust levels and that respiratory 

13 
 protection should be worn during these 

14 
 operations. It was also noted that additional 

15 
 ventilation would be required if these 

16 operations became routine. 

17 
 And the Ross 1964 reference is in 

18 
 the Site Research Database. It's Ref ID 

19 
 42862. And then the value for the Stokes 

20 
 furnace operator was 410 dpm per cubic meter, 

21 
 or about 6 max using the 70 dpm per cubic 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 meter concentration guidelines. And the94 

2 
 briquetting operator was lower value. 

3 
 Our proposal was to use those 

4 
 values, those two high values for the pilot 

5 
 plant for the years of operation that we don't 

6 
 have DWE data specifically. 

7 
 MR. BARTON: So it's the maximum, 

8 
 not the 95th percentile? 

9 
 MR. ROLFES: Well, let's see. 

10 
 These were the two jobs that were sampled that 

11 
 consistently generated high air dust levels. 

12 
 Let's see. It's 1964 thorium DWE data. It 

13 
 doesn't specify whether or not it's the 

14 maximum or 95th percentile, but --

15 
 MR. STIVER: Is it a DWE or are 

16 
 they just air concentrations, unweighted air 

17 concentrations? 

18 
 MR. BARTON: It sounds like it is 

19 just air concentrations. 

20 
 MR. ROLFES: From what it says 

21 
 here, it says it is not a full DWE study, 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 it contains 1964 thorium DWE data for 2 jobs95

2 
 that exceeded the concentration guide at the 

3 
 time. 

4 
 MR. STIVER: Okay. I guess my 

5 
 question is, is it an unweighted air 

6 
 concentration -- that would be like raw data 

7 
 -- or is it the actual --

8 
 MR. ROLFES: Yes. I'll take a look 

9 
 and see if I can pull up the Site Research 

10 Database document. 

11 
 MR. BARTON: And it looks like they 

12 
 have breathing zone and general air for a 

13 
 number of casts, but it's not delineated by 

14 
 the time spent. So they are unweighted air 

15 samples. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: So they are unweighted 

17 air samples. 

18 MR. BARTON: Yes. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So is this also 

20 an average or is this --

21 
 MR. BARTON: They provide a high, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 low, and average air concentration, then96 

2 
 convert that into the control guide at the 

3 
 time, which I guess was 100 dpm per meter 

4 
 cubed. 

5 
 I'm looking at the highest activity 

6 
 here was unloading the Stokes furnace. And 

7 
 that had an average value of 41,000 dpm per 

8 
 meter cubed. 

9 
 MR. STIVER: Did they give you the 

10 time allocation or anything? 

11 MR. BARTON: No, there's no time. 

12 
 MR. STIVER: Sort of like an 

13 average, unweighted air concentration data. 

14 MR. BARTON: Right. 

15 
 MR. STIVER: And then the -- hold 

16 
 on just a second here. And what is the value 

17 they came up with, then? It was like the --

18 
 MR. ROLFES: For unloading the 

19 
 Stokes furnace BZ, we had 410 times the NLO 

20 
 concentration guideline. It looks like 

21 
 loading the Stokes furnace was 130 times the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 national concentration guideline. We've got97 

2 
 some general areas that are lower, some more 

3 
 BZs that are lower. The GA was 55 times. 

4 
 MR. STIVER: But you have breathing 

5 
 zone data for this particular task. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Attached at the end 

7 
 of this, there is a DWE worksheet. 

8 
 MR. STIVER: Let me see. What's 

9 
 the name of the SRDB again? 

10 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The SRDB reference 

11 is 42862. 

12 
 MR. STIVER: 42862. Let me pull 

13 that up. 

14 
 MR. BARTON: You're right. There 

15 
 is some. They do break it out by time at the 

16 end. 

17 
 And, just looking at the breakout 

18 
 on some of these, the higher concentration 

19 
 jobs, it looks like they were doing it for a 

20 
 few minutes a day. You have 4.1 times the 

21 
 national concentration guide as the final 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 daily weighted exposure for that worker. 98 

2 
 MR. STIVER: And the concentration 

3 
 guide, is this an equivalent to a MAC or is a 

4 
 different level? 

5 
 MR. BARTON: It's 100 instead of 

6 
 70. So it looks like you do have --

7 
 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So if you use the 

9 
 old MAC number --

10 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. That's 6. Yes. 

11 And this is from 1964. 

12 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Stu, did you say 

13 NAC? 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: MAC, maximum 

15 
 allowable concentration. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. I just 

17 
 thought I heard you say NAC. And I was 

18 sitting there. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: No. That's 

20 something else. 

21 
 MR. STIVER: Okay. So it looks 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 like you do have some useable data here, '64.99

2 
 '67, I'm a little more concerned with because 

3 
 you only have those 18 samples. And this is 

4 
 basically the 95th percentile with the 

5 
 unweighted average, a little more concerned 

6 
 with that. It looks like '64, you have got 

7 
 something that you could make a good case for 

8 
 it being a reasonable high-end exposure, 

9 
 certainly higher than what you would have 

10 gotten from --

11 
 MR. BARTON: Based on that paper 

12 
 that was prepared in February, it looks like 

13 
 what the proposed approach is is to use that 

14 '64 data for all the way through '67. 

15 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

16 
 MR. BARTON: I'm looking at table 1 

17 
 in Fernald thorium worker location issue 

18 
 consolidated draft. And they indicate which 

19 
 years for which plants they would be using. 

20 
 And it's for the pilot plant. It would be 

21 
 that 1964 data. Of course, I mean, now the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 approach is whatever the highest plant was in 100

2 
 that year. So, I mean, that might not be what 

3 
 ends up being used. 

4 
 MR. STIVER: Well, actually, when 

5 
 you look at the only year that it wouldn't be 

6 
 would be '66, where you have a 7.1 MAC from 

7 
 Plant 8. 

8 
 MR. BARTON: Okay. 

9 
 MR. STIVER: So let come back to 

10 
 this one. So basically you would be looking 

11 
 at 4.1 MAC, whatever the -- accounting for the 

12 
 difference in the 170. So you would be a 

13 
 little over 5, close to 5 for the Stokes 

14 furnace job. 

15 
 MR. BARTON: I guess one of the 

16 
 things maybe you have some evidence to 

17 
 establish is, you know, you have those 

18 
 high-risk jobs in 1964 and you want some 

19 
 assurance that it can apply that to the years 

20 
 after that, that the versions hadn't noticed 

21 to be changed. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

-- 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. I guess that is 101 

2 
 true. I was not really comfortable buying off 

3 
 on a plant after all of those years until we 

4 
 had a little bit better understanding of 

5 
 whether that would have applied because we 

6 
 certainly have, you know, the melting and 

7 
 casting. I was thinking the Stokes furnace 

8 
 might be related to that during those years. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't remember 

10 what the Stokes furnace was on the plant. 

11 
 MR. STIVER: In looking at the 

12 
 other activities that are going on, I wouldn't 

13 
 be involved in the solvent extraction, 

14 
 obviously, or purifications, all the chemical 

15 extraction processes. 

16 
 MR. BARTON: I mean, you always 

17 
 want to use a daily weighted exposure just to 

18 


19 MR. STIVER: Oh, certainly, yes. 

20 
 MR. BARTON: -- sample 

21 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. 102 

2 
 MR. BARTON: But at the same time, 

3 
 if you look at the older drafts, what was 

4 
 assumed before was that 1967, based on the 18 

5 
 samples, --

6 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, but I've got a 

7 
 problem with that. 

8 
 MR. BARTON: -- was 77 MAC. And 

9 
 now we're talking about like six MAC. 

10 
 MR. STIVER: Well, 77 I always 

11 thought was kind of a --

12 MR. BARTON: Yes. 

13 
 MR. STIVER: -- tenuous number to 

14 
 begin with. It's based on such sparse data. 

15 That was one of the problems I had with it. 

16 
 I would tend to believe that for 

17 
 '64, you are okay. I am not quite so sure 

18 
 about '65 through '67, though, just 

19 
 extrapolating that across the board without 

20 real data. 

21 
 Like I say, you know, for every 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 other year, you've got an individual map that 103

2 
 would apply. That is the only time, that 

3 
 three-year period where you are hanging it all 

4 
 on one job from 1964. And I guess if you make 

5 
 the assumption that the work environment was 

6 
 essentially unchanged for the subsequent three 

7 
 years, then that would hold, but --

8 
 MR. ROLFES: I just wanted to point 

9 
 out also it is the highest job that we --

10 
 MR. STIVER: Right. It is highest, 

11 which is inconsistent with your approach. 

12 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Mark, could you 

13 
 explain to me what the Stokes furnace was in 

14 
 comparison to this encapsulating? I guess 

15 
 this is where I want to understand the 

16 
 process, but what was it? How did it play 

17 into these other parts of it? 

18 
 MR. ROLFES: If you're asking what 

19 a Stokes furnace is, I don't know what it is. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, yes. I 

21 
 guess the part that got to me was the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 encapsulation process, the casting, and so 104

2 
 forth like that. And what I was wondering is 

3 
 where they just call it the Stokes furnace, I 

4 
 was wondering if that is what that went into 

5 
 previously before the castings or --

6 
 MR. STIVER: This isn't related to 

7 
 the dirtiest job. This isn't what that was 

8 
 concerned with. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if 

10 
 anybody on the phone knows the answer to that, 

11 
 the Stokes furnace, what part of the operation 

12 
 the Stokes furnace was used in. I am not 

13 hearing anything. I guess not. 

14 
 MS. JESSEN: I don't know what the 

15 
 Stokes furnace is. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: I think we can infer 

17 
 it's related to the melting and casting 

18 
 operation. Apparently what aspect, is there 

19 another --

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, furnaces were 

21 
 used for production, the reduction process. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 They are used for melting and recasting. And 105 

2 
 they are used for oxidation. Usually when you 

3 
 are reclaiming something to oxide it to get in 

4 
 good material, good --

5 
 MR. STIVER: Right. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So those are 

7 
 generally the areas where you're going to use 

8 
 a furnace. And I don't know what the Stokes 

9 
 furnace, which -- that's probably a 

10 manufacturer. So I don't know what it was. 

11 
 MR. STIVER: We can kind of infer 

12 
 from the job description separating the ingot 

13 
 from the mold, that would certainly involve 

14 the melting and recasting. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: I don't believe there 

17 
 was any oxidation going on, at least according 

18 -- let's see. 

19 
 MR. ROLFES: Yes. Some of the 

20 
 subsequent operations that were sampled in 

21 this paper --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. 106 

2 
 MR. ROLFES: -- refer to removing 

3 
 the mold from the furnace, placing it in a 

4 
 cooling booth, loading crucibles with thorium 

5 
 powder, metal, and brick head. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That's melt. Yes. 

7 
 That's the melt part. 

8 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. That would be 

9 
 the melting aspect of it. 

10 MR. ROLFES: Crucible loading. 

11 
 MR. STIVER: Where are you finding 

12 that, Mark? 

13 
 MR. ROLFES: If you look within 

14 
 that Site Research Database document, this is 

15 
 on page 4 of 8. I was just looking at some of 

16 
 the subsequent operations and locations that 

17 
 were sampled following those first two, the 

18 high values. It's just further down. 

19 MR. STIVER: Okay. I see. 

20 MR. BARTON: That's the job there. 

21 
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Do we know 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 the capacity of these furnaces was? Any idea? 107 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Capacity in what 

3 
 sense? 

4 
 MR. BARTON: When they are loading 

5 
 or unloading. Are we talking about 1 or 2 

6 
 kilograms or are we talking about 10 or 20 

7 
 kilograms loads? 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know how 

9 
 they cast the thorium, if it was uranium 

10 
 casting was, you know, what, several hundred 

11 
 kilograms, I believe, maybe more. I don't 

12 know about the thorium. 

13 
 MR. STIVER: According to this 

14 
 thorium timeline, we're looking at about 30 

15 tons being processed. 

16 
 MR. KATZ: By the way, I just 

17 
 Googled Stokes furnace and went around that 

18 
 and found Rufus Stokes. It's an air 

19 
 purification system he invented for furnaces. 

20 
 So I don't know if that tells you much about 

21 what kind of furnace it was, 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. It looks like 108 

2 
 they're definitely involved in what I was 

3 
 concerned with, which is the dirtiest job, 

4 
 casting. Now, when we look at the Plant 9, 

5 
 that what we will talk about with Ted, but we 

6 
 had the really, really high MACs. And almost 

7 
 every one of the highest five MACs from Plant 

8 
 9 in 1955, the highest values involve some 

9 
 aspect of cleaning crucibles or some aspect 

10 
 regarding this recasting and melting 

11 operation. 

12 
 That's why it just kind of jumped 

13 
 off at me for the pilot plant when I saw that. 

14 
 It's like, wait a second. Here is your 

15 
 dirtiest job that you've got. And it looks 

16 
 like the Stokes furnace DWE captures that. 

17 
 Certainly that is my first impression looking 

18 over this for 1964. 

19 
 Now, this begs the question, of 

20 
 course, given the fact that the Plant 9 was so 

21 
 much higher for similar operations. Could we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 be missing something for '65 through '67? The 109 

2 
 operation was essentially going on that entire 

3 
 time. 

4 
 So is the '64 DWE really 

5 
 representative of the subsequent years or 

6 
 could it have been higher? I guess that's the 

7 
 thing that is kind of nagging at the back of 

8 
 my mind now. 

9 
 MR. ROLFES: For Plant 9, are you 

10 referring to like 1954 and '55? 

11 
 MR. STIVER: Nineteen fifty-five is 

12 where you had the highest MACs recorded. 

13 
 MR. ROLFES: That was also when 

14 
 they produced like 33 percent of the total 

15 thorium --

16 MR. STIVER: Oh, yes. 

17 MR. ROLFES: -- produced, too. 

18 
 MR. STIVER: Right. But, you know, 

19 
 the fact that at any given rung, it was going 

20 
 to be comparable, I would think, you know, the 

21 
 potential for high-dose loads in some aspect 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 of that job for a particular crucible wouldn't 110

2 
 be any different. You have a total throughput 

3 
 for that facility unless you were to scale 

4 
 everything down, which I doubt was the case. 

5 
 So it becomes the issue of, can we really hang 

6 
 our hats on 1964 data for the subsequent there 

7 
 years or not? I don't know. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can find 

9 
 the '67. I think the '67 data is in 

10 SRDB-2280. 

11 MR. STIVER: Yes, yes. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And it is 

13 intermixed with uranium --

14 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- data set. 

16 
 You've got to be careful if you're looking at 

17 thorium when you look through those. 

18 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: There is a lot of 

20 
 information on some of these. It almost looks 

21 
 like you can build, do a DWE for some jobs 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that were monitored in '67. I mean, they 111 

2 
 haven't drawn out, they haven't done the DWE 

3 
 calculation themselves, but it looks like they 

4 
 have taken the samples that would allow a DWE 

5 
 calculation. 

6 
 They talk about certain high-dose 

7 
 concentrations in their duration numbers, 

8 
 which I believe it was the sample duration 

9 
 because they took the sample for the duration 

10 of that activity. 

11 
 MR. STIVER: I remember looking at 

12 
 that back in 2009 and trying to go back and 

13 
 recall 4 or 5 years ago. But yes. I looked 

14 
 at some of that data when I first started here 

15 
 at SC&A. 

16 You know, at this point, I am not 

17 
 comfortable buying off on it. I certainly 

18 
 want to look at that '67 data in a little bit 

19 
 more detail. I realize this would have to be 

20 
 something we could do for a couple of days, 

21 
 you know, in a reasonably short time 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 turnaround time. 112 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: What we should 

3 
 probably do on our side, Mark, you read an 

4 
 email or a report. You read from a report 

5 
 that said there were data from '64, '65, and 

6 
 '67. Is that right? 

7 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The only DWE study 

9 
 being the sort of informal one that was done 

10 
 in '64 or not really informal. They did the 

11 
 DWE calculation time. So it would seem 

12 
 incumbent that we collect all of that data, if 

13 
 possible the data sheets, as well but collect 

14 
 the data on like a spreadsheet of some sort so 

15 
 we can convey what information we have 

16 concisely. 

17 
 You know, the SRDB references are 

18 
 handy to go back and look at, but you would 

19 
 really like to have the information from the 

20 
 data sheet transferred onto the spreadsheet. 

21 
 You can see it all handily in one place, that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 here was the data taken, this was the 113 

2 
 description of the activity, this is what they 

3 
 collected in terms of sample time, 

4 
 particularly on these DWEs because they tended 

5 
 to sample the operations. So the sample time 

6 
 was also the time of the operation. 

7 
 MR. STIVER: Right. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: What you may not 

9 
 get is how many times was the operation done 

10 
 in a day. If you're just looking at air 

11 sample sheets, you may not get that. 

12 
 MR. STIVER: Right. You don't get 

13 the weighting. 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And you may not 

15 
 know how much time. They have got some GA 

16 
 samples. You would have to deduce what time 

17 
 to apply the GA sample, depending on how many 

18 
 times they did that, the BZ monitored 

19 
 activity. So there might be some things you 

20 
 can put together. And I would think that that 

21 can be done in a relatively short 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. STIVER: We would certainly 114 

2 
 like to be able to make some definitive 

3 
 judgments in advance of the Board meeting. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. We'd 

5 
 need to do something in --

6 
 MR. STIVER: In the teleconference 

7 
 call or whatever. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- or would we need 

9 
 to thrash it out at the Board meeting? 

10 
 MR. KATZ: We can have another. We 

11 
 can have a teleconference meeting of this Work 

12 
 Group. There is time for that. So that is 

13 not a problem. 

14 
 MR. BARTON: You said that 

15 
 reference number was 2280? 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I probably said it 

17 wrong. 2280. It's an analytical data sheet. 

18 
 MR. BARTON: Yes. Those are 

19 actually dated 1977. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: '77? Oh, my god, 

21 
 you're right. We're talking about '67, aren't 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 we? 115 

2 
 MR. BARTON: Yes. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, my bad. My 

4 
 bad. 

5 
 MR. STIVER: It's only a factor of 

6 
 ten. 

7 
 (Laughter.) 

8 
 MR. STIVER: It's a small fraction. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --

10 MR. STIVER: I know that --

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's 70. That's 

12 
 all that was important. I was going to say 

13 
 ten years is not that important. Between '50 

14 
 and '60, it is. Between '60 and '70, it is. 

15 I'm sorry. You are right. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Looking at this 

17 


18 MR. HINNEFELD: Either way, we need 

19 to compile the data from '67 and --

20 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, see what you can 

21 
 pull up. It sounds like there may 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 something for '65. '66 is questionable. And 116 

2 
 then there is some for '67. So if we can see 

3 
 that data. 

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It would be handy 

5 
 to be able to refer to the SRDB figures so 

6 
 people can look back. 

7 
 MR. STIVER: Right. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It feels better to 

9 
 see the SRDB reference. You know, it may not 

10 
 tell you any more information, but it feels 

11 better. 

12 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: And then -- okay. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Because the 

15 
 dates that I was actually worried about, Stu, 

16 
 are like from the '64 to the '67 era, right 

17 
 through there. It wasn't clear. And it 

18 
 looked like, to me, that there were some 

19 
 outstanding questions on how we would do that, 

20 especially with that higher data. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And Morris Rev 3 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 proposed -- you know, they put in that cable, 117

2 
 the 95th percentile. That would be air data, 

3 
 the 18 air samples data in 1967, quite a high 

4 
 number. 

5 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. Where we left 

6 
 that, I have some concerns about that and also 

7 
 about that 686 MAC in '55 from Morris Rev 3. 

8 
 But we kind of tabled that so we could 

9 
 determine whether it was even implementable, 

10 
 you know. So I guess we are kind of picking 

11 that up again now. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Okay. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Help me 

14 
 understand. Because in my short knowledge of 

15 
 this, on this DWE data that we're going 

16 
 through, they're going to use that for 

17 everyone. 

18 
 MR. STIVER: If it's a high DWE for 

19 
 that year, everybody gets it because there's 

20 
 no way you can parse people out by where they 

21 
 might have been in the situation. So it's a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 one-size-fits-all model. It's kind of 118 

2 
 analogous to what we wound up with for the 

3 
 recycled uranium where everybody got 100 parts 

4 
 per billion plutonium, couldn't determine who 

5 
 was doing the jobs. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Those heavier --

7 
 I can't remember what year it is. My mind is 

8 
 not working too well right now. But, anyway, 

9 
 the heavier data, we had some very high 

10 
 set-points that to me seemed very, very high. 

11 That was '67, I believe. 

12 
 MR. STIVER: '67 data isn't a DWE. 

13 
 Basically it's a fit to 18 unweighted air 

14 
 samples at the 95th percentile. And this is 

15 
 kind of similar to what is being proposed in 

16 
 Revision 3 for 1955. It's Davis and Strom in 

17 
 their report. And there's a passage in there. 

18 
 I don't remember the exact words. It's to 

19 
 the effect that if you don't have DWE data but 

20 
 you do have air-sampling data, the 95th 

21 
 percentile and the unweighted air-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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 data, while probably higher than what anybody 119

2 
 would have gotten, would be certainly a 

3 
 bounding number. And so that's kind of the 

4 
 basis that underlies that approach here. 

5 
 Back in 2010, I thought that was 

6 
 still kind of a weak number to be applying, 

7 
 you know, past a four-year period because it 

8 
 was based on some pretty sparse data. But now 

9 
 it looks like you certainly have a DWE that's 

10 
 a representative for 1964, the Stokes furnace 

11 
 DWE. '65 and '66 we don't know. There may be 

12 
 something in '65. '67, we need to look at the 

13 
 data, see if there indeed are only 18 samples 

14 and what those samples represent. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: My question on 

16 that, too, are they an average or --

17 
 MR. STIVER: The 1967 data, this is 

18 
 basically a 95th percent of a bunch of 

19 
 unweighted air samples. There's no time20 
 weighting associated with those values. So 

21 
 they're very high. They are very high. 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 
 

 

 

-- 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 it's a big number. 120
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And I realize --

3 
 because to me, basically, we're getting into 

4 
 the aspect of could somebody plausibly --

5 
 MR. STIVER: Well, that's a nice 

6 
 segue to the 1955 issue. Before we get there, 

7 
 though, I guess what I would like to do, I 

8 
 guess, so, you guys, NIOSH's side, you're 

9 
 going to get everything together that you can 

10 
 on the '64 to '67 --

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. The data 

12 
 that's described in that, we will get that and 

13 


14 
 MR. STIVER: Right. If you get 

15 
 that posted, we can look at it. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and also the 

17 
 SRDB references. 

18 
 MR. STIVER: Right, and the 

19 
 references that go with it. And then we can 

20 
 look at that and then have a teleconference 

21 
 call before the Board meeting and decide how 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 we're going to go on those four years, whether 121

2 
 we're in agreement or not. And then we'll 

3 
 bring the issue up, discuss it at the Board 

4 
 meeting, but we have all got to be on the same 

5 
 page, or at least have our position staked 

6 
 out. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Because '64 to 

8 
 '67 is my issue. I want to discuss this with 

9 
 you in detail before I go on that. So the 

10 
 path forward, we're going to have NIOSH 

11 
 deliver a spreadsheet and everything they've 

12 
 got on that because some of this kind of -- I 

13 
 haven't seen. So I apologize. I didn't know 

14 
 it was out there. That's my fault for not 

15 
 reviewing that. We're going to have to have a 

16 Work Group call. 

17 MR. KATZ: Teleconference. 

18 
 MR. STIVER: Another teleconference 

19 
 call, I don't know, in a week or so. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: You might want to 

21 go more than a week. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. STIVER: So what have we got? 122 

2 
 We have got one month. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: We've got a month 

4 
 before the Board meeting. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, and the best is two 

6 
 weeks. We'll just have to find a date that 

7 
 works, too. So it may be two weeks. It may 

8 
 be longer than two weeks depending on when 

9 
 people are available. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

11 
 MR. KATZ: Right now, the only time 

12 
 period I'm quite certain about is the week 

13 
 right before the Board meeting, I know there 

14 
 is still quite a bit of availability for a 

15 
 Work Group. In general, it's nicer to do it 

16 
 earlier because then we can get presentations 

17 
 ready and so on earlier. So we'll shoot for, 

18 if you want to shoot for, two weeks from now. 

19 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, that would give 

20 
 us plenty of time. In a day or two, we'll 

21 
 have a -- or once we see the data, we'll 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 a better handle on where we are. 123 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Right. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It would be the 

4 
 week of July 4th. We're only off on the 4th. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: And my availability is 

6 
 good that week. It's just --

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The week after 

8 
 there is a civic society meeting, that might 

9 
 affect John and some people. It might affect 

10 some ORAU folks. 

11 MR. STIVER: Yes, yes. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It won't affect 

13 Mark or me. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And July 8th 

15 
 through the 16th or 15th, I'm not available at 

16 all. 

17 MR. STIVER: That is HPS, though. 

18 MR. KATZ: Right. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. That is the 

20 HPS meeting. 

21 
 MR. KATZ: So why don't people 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 at the calendars now while we're on the topic? 124

2 
 The week of July 4th, is that enough time, 

3 
 Mark and Stu, to get a spreadsheet together? 

4 
 MR. ROLFES: I would think so. 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I would think so. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. And giving SC&A a 

7 
 couple of days to be able to look at it and 

8 
 make sense. So the July 4th is off, 

9 
 obviously, but I have good availability then. 

10 
 It's up to all of you and all on the phone, 

11 too. 

12 
 MR. STIVER: I could be there any 

13 day. It doesn't much matter to me. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: With the holiday 

15 
 falling on the weekend, I don't want to get 

16 
 into that. I'd prefer to do it the first of 

17 the week. 

18 
 MR. STIVER: How about Tuesday, the 

19 2nd? 

20 
 MR. KATZ: So Paul, how is July 2nd 

21 
 for you for a teleconference? It wouldn't 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 a very long teleconference. This is just one 125 

2 
 issue, I think, unless we end up having --

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, unless we 

4 
 have other --

5 
 MR. KATZ: Right. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: We're not done 

7 
 today. We may be able to wrap up the rest of 

8 
 them. 

9 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: July 2nd, did you 

10 say? 

11 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. Paul, how is that 

12 for you? 

13 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think that will 

14 
 be all right. I don't know for sure because 

15 
 -- well, let's just say at the moment it looks 

16 okay. 

17 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, I guess let 

18 me ask you this. 

19 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's a little crazy 

20 right now. 

21 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. I know. Is July 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 3rd better or same difference? 126 

2 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, no. The 2nd 

3 
 will be better, I think. 

4 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. And p.m., a.m.? 

5 
 Do people have a preference. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Earlier in the 

7 
 morning. Actually, what is July 1st? That's 

8 
 a Monday. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: That's a Monday. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. I'm trying 

11 to schedule this around my days off. 

12 MR. KATZ: Right. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And that would 

14 
 -- July 1st would actually work better for me, 

15 
 because July 2nd, I'm actually supposed to be 

16 back for work. But --

17 
 MR. STIVER: I was going to say it 

18 doesn't matter to me. Whatever you guys --

19 
 MR. KATZ: Does that still work for 

20 you guys? 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. KATZ: July 1st? Okay. So 127 

2 
 what about July 1st, Paul? Is the better or 

3 
 worse than the 2nd? 

4 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: July 1st works for 

5 
 me. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: July 1? 

7 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: That's a Monday, 

8 
 Paul. 

9 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's okay for me. 

10 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. So let me just 

11 
 see what I have on my schedule. Yes. I have 

12 
 something I can move. I can do away with 

13 
 things in the way. So July 1st a.m., you're 

14 saying is better? 

15 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: A.m., in the 

16 morning would be better. 

17 
 MR. KATZ: So you're out West. 

18 What time your time is --

19 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Whatever time 

20 
 you guys -- I'm used to getting up at 5:00 to 

21 go to work. 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. 128 

2 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: -- we're good on 

3 
 that. 

4 
 MR. KATZ: Nine a.m.? Does that 

5 
 work for everybody? Nine a.m. Eastern time on 

6 
 July 1st? 

7 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Let's do it. 

8 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. Nine a.m. July 1 

10 
 teleconference. And it probably won't last 

11 
 that long unless we have a lot of other 

12 issues. Okay. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I want to be 

14 
 clear on this. Are we looking at the '64 to 

15 '67 data or actually more --

16 
 MR. STIVER: This is the '64 to '67 

17 
 data for the pilot plant. This is pretty 

18 focused. 

19 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Good. 

20 MR. KATZ: Paul? 

21 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: The question raised 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 about what a Stokes furnace was, did somebody 129

2 
 answer that? 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Well, I just looked up 

4 
 Stokes and saw that he had invented an air 

5 
 pollution device that works pretty well for 

6 
 furnaces. That was one of the things. 

7 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: The Stokes 

8 
 Corporation came up with a furnace for 

9 
 plutonium and uranium melting. It was a 

10 vacuum furnace. 

11 MR. STIVER: Induction furnace. 

12 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. And that was 

13 
 used, I think, for casting and vacuum melting 

14 and those kinds of things. 

15 
 MR. STIVER: That's exactly what we 

16 


17 MR. KATZ: So that is really 

18 helpful. 

19 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

20 
 MR. KATZ: That answers the 

21 question, then. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That's consistent 130 

2 
 with the job description this morning. 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

4 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I think it was 

5 
 initially proposed for plutonium work. 

6 
 MS. JESSEN: Just so you know, 

7 
 there is a used vacuum furnace for sale on the 

8 
 internet that uses Stokes roughing pumps. 

9 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. 

10 (Laughter.) 

11 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

12 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. So we 

13 will look more into that in detail, then. 

14 
 MR. STIVER: Okay. So, again, 

15 
 we'll kind of keep this in abeyance until we 

16 can sort out the data issue. 

17 
 The next aspect of the DWEs was 

18 
 this 1955 Plant 9 issue. And I had sent 

19 
 around a spreadsheet last night that I hope 

20 everybody got. 

21 
 Let me see if I can pull this up 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 here. Okay. I am not used to working with 131 

2 
 the 2010 version of Excel here. 

3 
 MR. ROLFES: John, is this on the 

4 
 K: drive by chance? 

5 
 MR. STIVER: No. This is something 

6 
 I had done years ago when I was working on the 

7 
 DWE problem called "Plant 9: 1955-1306-12A." 

8 
 I sent it to Stu last night. 

9 
 Basically, this is my re-creation 

10 
 of the DWEs, which I did for basically all of 

11 
 the plants that we were tasked to look at 

12 
 based on the raw data that Mark had provided 

13 
 back in 2009. And the important thing to see, 

14 
 we talked about this last week in the 

15 
 technical call, that Mark had indicated that 

16 
 Bob Morris, who was the author of the model, 

17 
 thought that maybe this, which is the 

18 
 secondary welder's helper that had the highest 

19 
 DWE, 686 MAC, but there might have been some 

20 
 transcription errors. It just seemed like too 

21 high of a value for 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 So I went through all of the data 132

2 
 for all of these workers in Plant 9. And it 

3 
 turns out, like I said, the highest DWEs, 

4 
 there are five of them. And the top four 

5 
 ranged from 215, 233, 473, and 685 a pack. 

6 
 So there's quite a few jobs here 

7 
 that all have very high values. And in every 

8 
 case, they tend to be driven by one or two 

9 
 very high breathing zone samples. Now, these 

10 
 are probably obviously transients that are 

11 captured, you know. 

12 
 Of course, with the measurements, 

13 
 you wouldn't necessarily expect to sustain a 

14 
 cloud of thorium at 900,000 dpm per cubic 

15 
 meter for any length of time. But it looks to 

16 
 me that the pattern here -- I mean, once 

17 
 again, every one of these tasks that has the 

18 
 real high DWE are the types of tasks you would 

19 
 expect. And for all those four positions, the 

20 highest are over 500,000 dpm per cubic meter. 

21 
 So I don't think what we're dealing 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 with here is a situation where we have 133 

2 
 transcription errors. It's just that you've 

3 
 got a very high concentration, a transient 

4 
 concentration, during a particular task. 

5 
 Now, you ask yourself, is it 

6 
 reasonable to think that this worker is going 

7 
 to be breathing this stuff while he is in 

8 
 there? And the answer is no. You go to the 

9 
 HASL reports. For this particular one, it's 

10 
 Stefanec in 1955. And they actually say that 

11 
 for the high-dust operations, the respiratory 

12 potential is one. 

13 
 Now, of course, the question is, 

14 
 what is high-dust operations? Is it ten 

15 
 percent? How do they define it? But the 

16 
 problem being is that we're kind of in a 

17 
 unique situation in using air data to provide 

18 intakes. 

19 
 Here we have got a situation where 

20 
 we have real exposures. The dirtiest job in 

21 
 the entire Fernald plant is, in 1955, thorium 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 metal production. And these are the real DWEs 134 

2 
 that were gathered there. 

3 
 The wrinkle is that they didn't 

4 
 account for respiratory protection in doing 

5 
 these studies. So you have a few high samples 

6 
 in each one of these that you know the guy is 

7 
 probably wearing a respirator during that 

8 
 time. And if you don't consider that fact, 

9 
 you end up with a value. You take 686 MAC. 

10 
 And then you consider the specific activity of 

11 
 natural thorium is 2.2 times 10 to the minus 

12 
 seven curies per gram, I believe, which is 

13 
 very low specific activity. And that 

14 
 translates to about 100 milligrams per cubic 

15 meter for that value. 

16 
 Now, that's just about the 

17 
 physiological tolerance limit that anybody can 

18 
 stand for any length of time. So do you then 

19 
 give everybody 100 milligrams per cubic meter, 

20 
 8 hours a day, for the entire year or does 

21 that just seem unreasonable? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 So, you know, NIOSH became -- the 135

2 
 thing you guys posted was an alternative way 

3 
 of looking at the intake for that particular 

4 
 year. And correct me if I'm wrong. Some of 

5 
 the people on the phone are involved in this. 

6 
 But it looks like what you did is you took 

7 
 all of the air-sampling data for 1955. You 

8 
 fit it to a log-normal and did repeated 

9 
 sampling to generate some theoretical 

10 
 distribution of air concentration data, and 

11 
 then took off the 95th percentile of that, 

12 
 which was, I believe -- well, that was one 

13 
 aspect. It was one way of doing it. You got 

14 a value that's about 100 MAC, give or take. 

15 
 The other aspect was to look at --

16 
 I think it was like 785 actual samples. It 

17 
 wasn't a complete set. And you just did a 

18 
 normal, you know, a log-normal fit to that and 

19 
 did the same. That came out to about 75 or 80 

20 
 MAC. 

21 And so it's an alternate 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 kind of concerns me because here we're 136 

2 
 throwing out real -- if you go that route, 

3 
 you're throwing out real data because it seems 

4 
 too high. 

5 
 Now, this is real data for real 

6 
 workers and real jobs. And it's got some 

7 
 limitations because it doesn't consider 

8 
 respiratory protection. We don't really worry 

9 
 about that when we're dealing with one or two 

10 
 MAC, but when you start getting up to the 

11 
 physiological tolerance limit, it starts 

12 
 making a bigger difference. Is it plausible 

13 that somebody could breathe that much? 

14 
 And so I guess the question, the 

15 
 place I am at right now is that, you know, 

16 
 you've got an alternate approach where you can 

17 
 go through and model an intake based on a 

18 
 bootstrap approach, or you can take the real 

19 
 data and then possibly account for respiratory 

20 protections. 

21 
 We did 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 back-of-the-envelope calculations using 137 

2 
 protection factors of 10 and 100. And, as you 

3 
 expect, you apply it to the highest MAC. It's 

4 
 that one task that's 900,000 dpm per cubic 

5 
 meter for 70 minutes that's driving the train. 

6 
 And you apply a protection factor to that. 

7 
 You can knock it down to about 10 to 70 

8 
 depending on whether you use a protection 

9 
 factor of 10 or 100. I mean, you can do that. 

10 
 You can figure out what is a reasonable value 

11 
 for the respirators that were used at the 

12 time. 

13 
 And so you end up with a number 

14 
 that is pretty close to what the bootstrap 

15 
 analysis gave, but in our opinion, it seems to 

16 
 be more reasonable because you're using the 

17 real data. You're not throwing it out. 

18 
 And so that is kind of where we are 

19 
 on that particular number. You know, I think 

20 
 I am speaking for the SC&A team. And I think 

21 
 686 MAC is not a reasonable value to give 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 somebody on a continuous basis. 138 

2 
 MR. BARTON: And, John, when you 

3 
 talk about converting 686 MAC to the 

4 
 equivalent in milligrams of dust, that is the 

5 
 daily weight of exposure for that entire day. 

6 
 If you actually look at that, just that 

7 
 75-minute activity where he's up around around 

8 
 600,000 dpm. 

9 
 MR. STIVER: Oh, yes. 

10 
 MR. BARTON: I mean, it's like even 

11 
 out of the realm of unreasonable. It's 

12 unrealistic. 

13 MR. STIVER: Oh, yes. Yes. 

14 
 MR. BARTON: You wouldn't be able 

15 to breathe. You would be choking on it. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: And not only that, if 

17 
 you take 686 MAC and put a GSD of 5 on it, you 

18 
 are looking at one and a half grams per cubic 

19 
 meter. You know, he can't even sustain a 

20 
 cloud --

21 MR. BARTON: I think you put 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 
 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 very succinctly, John. I think our main 139 

2 
 concern here is not the number that is being 

3 
 proposed. I mean, it is right in the realm of 

4 
 the number if you apply respiratory 

5 
 protection. I think our main concern is how 

6 
 we are getting there and that if we are going 

7 
 to start throwing out these numbers because 

8 
 they are very high, to me, that is a very 

9 
 dangerous precedent to set and could be a 

10 
 Pandora's box. Whereas -- and I know it is 

11 
 policy not to ever really account for 

12 
 respiratory protection because you are not 

13 
 sure if they're wearing it, but I think in 

14 
 cases where it is physically impossible that 

15 
 he wasn't wearing it, then maybe that is a 

16 
 reasonable consideration to take when you are 

17 
 trying to arrive at a reasonable number to 

18 apply at a coworker model. 

19 
 Like I said, our problem is not the 

20 
 number you came up with. Our problem is 

21 
 really just sort of the philosophy behind the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 process of -- we have these daily weighted 140

2 
 exposure reports, which are great tools to try 

3 
 to get an idea of the exposure potential these 

4 
 workers faced. And to kind of deconstruct 

5 
 them and start using the raw data I think sets 

6 
 a rather dangerous precedent. 

7 
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I have a 

8 
 question. You're talking about you're going 

9 
 to assume that they're using some type of face 

10 mask. Do we know what kind it is? 

11 
 MR. BARTON: No. Airline 

12 respirator is what they --

13 
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Just airline 

14 respirator? 

15 
 MR. BARTON: -- actually talk about 

16 
 in the daily weighted exposure report. They 

17 
 specifically say these don't take into account 

18 
 the fact that workers wear respirators in 

19 
 high-dust environments. Again, we don't know 

20 what that high-dust environment is. 

21 
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: It's just one of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 the little cardboard-type ones, one of the --141

2 
 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

3 
 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, but I'm 

4 
 simply saying, really, when you start 

5 
 interjecting that, you need to really know 

6 
 what they're using because otherwise there are 

7 
 huge factor differences of personal protection 

8 
 equipment they could have had available to 

9 
 them. 

10 MR. STIVER: I think you'd have to 

11 
 do some forensic research. You know, back in 

12 
 1955, for an airline respirator in this type 

13 
 of operation, what was the protection factor, 

14 
 what type of cartridges and so forth if they 

15 
 use cartridges -- they didn't use cartridges 

16 
 then -- but what kind of value would be 

17 
 reasonable? 

18 So, you know, the question is, it 

19 
 would have to be implemented in a TIB of some 

20 
 kind, but it would take some work. It's 

21 
 something that, in theory, could be done. You 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 know, in practice, you know, first of all, 142

2 
 what do you decide a high-dust value is? And 

3 
 what is the appropriate protection factor you 

4 
 would apply to it? 

5 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So, John, if I 

6 
 am following you right on this -- and, Mark, 

7 
 correct me if I'm wrong on yours. What NIOSH 

8 
 did was took these high doses and it didn't 

9 
 use them and did a log-normal distribution. 

10 
 And what your issue is, is that you don't want 

11 
 to throw these out but to put the respiratory 

12 protection limit, use it. Is that what --

13 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. Both approaches, 

14 
 you get a number that is within the same range 

15 
 given the uncertainties we are dealing with. 

16 
 The difference is our number -- not our 

17 
 number; we don't necessarily own it -- but 

18 
 using the DWE as a starting point, you've got 

19 
 a more solid basis. You've got real 

20 
 measurements that are actually documented. We 

21 
 know that the highest, dirtiest tasks 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 done with respiratory protections. You know, 143 

2 
 they even tell you the type of respirator they 

3 
 used. Without that, it would be physically 

4 
 impossible to do the job, situation where it 

5 
 had to have happened. 

6 
 So we are that point where, really, 

7 
 if you're going to consider the fact that 

8 
 these people were exposed, that this is the 

9 
 dirtiest job you could possibly do, and if you 

10 
 make all the claimant-favorable assumptions 

11 
 you normally would when you are dealing with 

12 
 doses and intakes that are down in the lower 

13 
 range, you wind up with a number that is just 

14 
 implausible to how you could possibly survive 

15 that. 

16 
 So our approach is to say, okay, 

17 
 how are we going to take this data that we 

18 
 have and generate a reasonable intake knowing 

19 
 what we know? And applying respiratory 

20 
 factors to the real data we believe is 

21 
 probably preferable to throwing that data out 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 and generating a theoretical statistical 144 

2 
 construct to replace it with. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Mark, did I 

4 
 represent NIOSH's side of it? You guys are 

5 
 not using this data correctly -- or, correct? 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think why 

7 
 our most recent proposal is called the 

8 
 bootstrap analysis is that we don't have the 

9 
 entirety of the air samples because when you 

10 
 get a DWE report, it will say there were six 

11 
 samples taken, you have the min, max, and 

12 
 average. And so you don't have the entirety 

13 
 of it. And the bootstrap program is intended 

14 
 to -- well, let's assume that they're 

15 
 log-normally distributed. Knowing the min, 

16 
 max, and average, we can build -- we know what 

17 
 a log-normal distribution would look like. 

18 
 And we will populate that, essentially 

19 
 randomly generate numbers in there. That 

20 
 gives us then a complete data set and allows 

21 
 us to use, I think, the 95th percentile 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 
 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 complete data set, which was what Strom also 145

2 
 kind of endorsed. And so that's the point. 

3 
 Now, SC&A has expressed discomfort 

4 
 with that approach over an actual measured, 

5 
 collected set of data that were taken for the 

6 
 purposes of measuring exposure. I mean, 

7 
 that's what these were. These were exposure 

8 
 studies. And the technique was developed at 

9 
 HASL. I think, actually, Fernald did them 

10 
 themselves because I think these people that 

11 
 ran health and safety early on at Fernald came 

12 from HASL. 

13 
 And so their position is you've got 

14 
 all of this good data, you've just got this 

15 
 problematic 1955 year. And there is other 

16 
 evidence that '55 was the worst exposure year 

17 
 for thorium. We've got a memo that I can put 

18 
 on -- I probably should have done it before 

19 
 today -- it was a memo between two people at 

20 
 HASL, one relating to his boss the 

21 
 conversation that he had had with his former 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 colleague who was the medical director at 146

2 
 Fernald. And he said he essentially called 

3 
 him up and said he wanted to deal with the 

4 
 thorium exposures you had last year, last year 

5 
 being 1955. And he describes numbers as high 

6 
 as -- exposures as high as, 50,000 micrograms 

7 
 per cubic meter, with individual samples as 

8 
 high as half a gram per cubic meter. 

9 
 And the description that he 

10 
 pretends that was given to him by the medical 

11 
 director was, "well, they were very high. We 

12 
 got this rush order from DOE. They were 

13 
 trying to make it. Since the numbers were so 

14 
 high, we told them they had to slow down the 

15 
 production rate. And we got the exposures 

16 
 down, the maximum exposures down to 15,000 

17 
 micrograms per cubic meter." And so there is 

18 some other kind of information. 

19 
 Now, I think 50,000 micrograms 

20 
 relates to, what, 170-some MAC or something. 

21 
 So, you know, all of these things indicate 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that somewhere in that neighborhood of 100 to 147

2 
 150 or 100, somewhere close to 100, is 

3 
 probably a decent number for the exposure for 

4 
 that year. You know, the DWE with respiratory 

5 
 protection, you can only count 10, a 

6 
 protection factor of 10, which is pretty low 

7 
 for an airline, but you can only do that. 

8 
 All of these things kind of 

9 
 indicate that there is a number. It seems 

10 
 like there is a number that can be worked out. 

11 
 The DWE is probably a sufficient method for 

12 doing this with some modification. 

13 
 So I think on the face of it here, 

14 
 we have some discomfort from SC&A. I would 

15 
 guess maybe the Work Group would share that 

16 
 discomfort with the bootstrap program and 

17 
 would share the preference for the DWE, or the 

18 
 DWE with some consideration, because of that 

19 
 one implausible, that 686 number, which just 

20 doesn't seem realistic. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, in 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 looking at it, because I never want to put 148

2 
 NIOSH into a situation where -- a lot of times 

3 
 you don't take into consideration the 

4 
 respiratory part of this, and I don't want to 

5 
 put NIOSH into a situation where it creates 

6 
 problems for them in other areas. But, on the 

7 
 other hand, I'd like to be able to say that we 

8 
 used all of the data that we had and we used 

9 
 it. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if the 

11 preference is for actual measured data --

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- then I would say 

14 
 you share SC&A's discomfort with the bootstrap 

15 
 program, which essentially generates 

16 
 distributions with essentially a random number 

17 
 generator in the distribution. And you 

18 generate the results. 

19 
 So then you would share SC&A's 

20 
 discomfort in that and prefer some utilization 

21 of measured 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 Now, the letter between the two 149

2 
 HASL employees is a sort of a -- he says 

3 
 50,000 micrograms per cubic meter. It's a 

4 
 throw-away. You know, it's sort of like it 

5 
 was as high as this, and they used a nice, 

6 
 round number. So I don't know that you want 

7 
 to attach a lot of precision to that for that 

8 
 number. But he was giving the ballpark of the 

9 
 kind of thing it would be. 

10 
 So, to me, it sounds like it's 

11 
 something that can be worked out in 

12 
 conversation to arrive at a number. It is 

13 going to be really high. 

14 
 And, in fact, the thorium exposures 

15 
 in general, if you go through these DWE 

16 
 numbers, I mean, I don't know that there is a 

17 
 year where the DWE is less than the MAC. Is 

18 there? 

19 
 MR. STIVER: There are some. The 

20 
 Plant 1 numbers are down. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. But 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 you're going to choose the highest one -- 150 

2 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. Well, the 

3 
 highest one is --

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in any given 

5 
 year and then you're going to apply a GSD of 

6 
 5, I mean, these are going to be some high --

7 
 MR. STIVER: Some high intakes. 

8 
 You know, we understand that, but, like I 

9 
 said, you put it exactly as I would state it, 

10 
 Stu. That is really our concern, that we 

11 
 don't want to start getting away from the 

12 
 actual exposure measurements if we don't have 

13 to. 

14 
 I've used the bootstrap technique 

15 
 before to verify or to kind of, you know, do a 

16 
 validation of distributions. You know, if we 

17 
 were to go through and get a good sample, you 

18 
 know, exactly the same thing that Tom LaBone 

19 
 and your guys did, it is a useful tool. I 

20 
 would feel discomfort -- that's a good way to 

21 
 put it -- in replacing the actual data 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that kind of bootstrap -- 151 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Just another alternative 

3 
 way to think about it, is you could, though, 

4 
 flip that around, what you just said. 

5 
 Normally you used a bootstrap to validate 

6 
 whatever. You could turn it around and use 

7 
 that to validate. Since you are saying the 

8 
 numbers come out about the same, you could use 

9 
 that to provide reassurance in terms that the 

10 
 bootstrap's coming out at the right place, as 

11 opposed to replacing the bootstraps --

12 
 MR. STIVER: You could take the 

13 
 inverse. I guess the problem there is you are 

14 
 losing the pedigree of the data by doing that. 

15 MR. KATZ: Well, yes. 

16 MS. LIN: It's validating. 

17 
 MR. KATZ: It's validating your 

18 
 model, basically, and you're using in its 

19 place. 

20 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

21 
 MR. KATZ: That is still relying 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 data. It is not like it's being pulled out of 152 

2 
 the blue. 

3 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, but instead of 

4 
 using the actual data, you're using the model, 

5 
 using the data to validate the model, which is 

6 
 kind of backwards. 

7 
 MR. KATZ: So the issue there is 

8 
 just whether there are advantages to using the 

9 
 model over going the approach that you are 

10 
 talking about. I don't know whether there are 

11 
 or aren't, but whether developing your 

12 approach is --

13 
 MR. STIVER: The other aspect of it 

14 
 is if you're using the model, you're using the 

15 
 time weighting aspect, because essentially 

16 
 what they're generating is a whole series of 

17 unweighted air concentrations. 

18 
 This is sort of the fallback 

19 
 position in Davis and Strom. If don't have 

20 
 DWEs, the high percentile of the unweighted 

21 
 air concentration distribution would be the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 next step. 153 

2 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And I guess, 

3 
 from my standpoint, my issue is if we have the 

4 
 data, we should be using the data. But as you 

5 
 have already pointed out to me on some other 

6 
 occasions, you are going to have to use the 

7 
 respiratory or it's --

8 
 MR. STIVER: You would have to 

9 
 apply some respiratory factor to those high 

10 
 exposures. Otherwise, you would wind up with 

11 
 an air concentration that would not be 

12 physiologically --

13 
 MS. LIN: So there is actually 

14 
 information for NIOSH to develop a protection 

15 factor? 

16 
 MR. STIVER: I think that kind of 

17 information is available in health physics. 

18 
 MS. LIN: But you would basically 

19 be developing a model. 

20 
 MR. STIVER: It wouldn't 

21 
 necessarily be a model. It would just 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 looking at the airline respirators and the 154

2 
 protection factors that they normally have. 

3 
 There is a lot of data out there for that kind 

4 
 of thing. 

5 
 MS. LIN: Okay. 

6 
 MR. STIVER: It wouldn't be a 

7 
 theoretical construct. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Bob, when you 

9 
 guys used this data and used a protection 

10 
 factor, what did you use, a protection factor 

11 of ten? 

12 
 MR. BARTON: We did two runs two 

13 
 runs. And, again, the 686 MAC job had one 

14 
 75-minute task that was really just --

15 
 basically what we did is we said, all right, 

16 
 what if we take the data that went into the 

17 
 DWE and say for that one specific task, we're 

18 
 going to assume that he had some sort of 

19 
 respiratory protection, and we calculated for 

20 
 a factor of 10 and 100 and we came up with 

21 
 numbers that are in the same ballpark as a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 bootstrap. And, actually, they were a little 155 

2 
 bit lower. 

3 
 And I'm perfectly fine with that 

4 
 because I honestly feel like making 

5 
 adjustments to daily weighted exposures like 

6 
 that, where it is just physiologically 

7 
 impossible that anybody could inhale that and 

8 
 not completely choke on it, I think that is 

9 
 one instance where it is realistic and okay to 

10 
 apply a protection factor because, I mean, we 

11 
 were just dealing with situations that you 

12 
 have to have it. I mean, you just can't have 

13 
 a worker in that environment breathing that in 

14 because she wouldn't be able to breathe. 

15 
 MS. LIN: So these respiratory 

16 
 protection equipment that was used during this 

17 
 time period at Fernald is also used at other 

18 
 sites. Whether a worker was actually choking 

19 on the actual environment is --

20 
 MR. STIVER: Well, it would be used 

21 in any kind of high-dust environment --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MS. LIN: Right. 156 

2 
 MR. STIVER: -- whether it be 

3 
 mining, manufacturing, wherever you are --

4 
 MS. LIN: Okay. 

5 
 MR. STIVER: -- generating large 

6 
 quantities of dust. 

7 
 MS. LIN: So for any other site, if 

8 
 something like this happens and we have 

9 
 evidence showing that there is actually 

10 
 respiratory protection equipment used, would 

11 
 SC&A be proposing the protection factors if 

12 the value isn't high but they just --

13 
 MR. STIVER: Well, I would say that 

14 
 it is a matter to be considered. I mean, up 

15 
 until now, this has never come up because we 

16 
 have never had real measurements that are that 

17 high. 

18 MS. LIN: But you were --

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So, if I could 

20 
 offer something, Jenny. As a general rule, we 

21 
 don't provide credit for respiratory 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 protection because if you go back, really, 157

2 
 even as recently as early in my career, sites 

3 
 would not have quantitative fit-test programs 

4 
 and the kind of training and proving proof of 

5 
 fit that you have today in order to claim the 

6 
 protection factors NIOSH recommends on various 

7 
 kinds of equipment today. 

8 
 And so because those things, you 

9 
 know, those programs just -- you know, not 

10 
 only were they not documented. They probably 

11 didn't exist. We have not claimed that. 

12 
 The special circumstance here, 

13 
 though, is that the measured data is 

14 essentially not breathable. 

15 
 MS. LIN: Right. So then we still 

16 
 don't have validation and we need it to say 

17 
 that the respiratory equipment actually passes 

18 the test of what we were talking about. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. You are 

20 right. There is no --

21 MS. LIN: That would 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The only reason 158 

2 
 that this is different from our other position 

3 
 where people didn't have, you know, programs, 

4 
 is that in this case, you just can't breathe 

5 
 that concentration that was measured in this 

6 
 DWE. 

7 
 MS. LIN: Right. But then we're 

8 
 using the measurement to drive the respiratory 

9 
 protection test and whether that will be 

10 
 applicable. So I am not entirely sure that 

11 will be --

12 
 MR. STIVER: I see where you are 

13 
 coming from. You are saying, yes, if you are 

14 
 going to apply it here, you should probably --

15 MS. LIN: Right. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: -- apply it in all of 

17 the others as well. 

18 
 MS. LIN: Yes. 

19 
 MR. STIVER: And then you don't 

20 have a real --

21 MR. KATZ: You have to 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. STIVER: -- valid basis for 159 

2 
 using those values at that time. 

3 
 MR. KATZ: What you have here that 

4 
 is distinct is the certainty that it was used; 

5 
 whereas, you don't in a lot of other 

6 
 circumstances. 

7 
 MS. LIN: But how effective was it 

8 
 implemented? 

9 
 MR. KATZ: So to get to that 

10 
 question, the one thing I am just wondering 

11 
 about is -- so it's airline, it's 

12 
 air-supplied, basically, respirator. And 

13 
 generally with air-supplied, you have less of 

14 
 a fit factor issue than you do with 

15 
 respirators where you were actually drawing 

16 
 the air through a filter, because the air is 

17 being, in effect, blown into your mouth. 

18 
 So you have less of a fit issue 

19 
 with air-supplied respirators. The only thing 

20 
 I am just wondering about is we're talking 

21 
 about 1955, which is a long way back. 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 predates NIOSH being involved -- 160 

2 
 (Laughter.) 

3 
 MR. KATZ: For example, NIOSH has 

4 
 done respirator research since the '70s, '71. 

5 
 And there is a lot known about the 

6 
 performance effectiveness of different types 

7 
 of respirators now. I just have no idea what 

8 
 that literature is like when you go back to 

9 
 '55. But the one thing you have, again, in 

10 
 favor is that this is air-supplied. It's not 

11 a filter, it's a respirator. 

12 
 So there may be good enough 

13 
 evidence that you could be certain of a 

14 
 certain fit factor. I don't know. I just 

15 don't know. That is my question. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: You know, Jenny 

17 
 hit on exactly what I was trying to get to a 

18 
 little earlier when I was talking about NIOSH, 

19 
 because I hate to -- this is one situation 

20 
 where I am trying to use the actual data, but 

21 
 the actual data drives us to such a high 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that it is physically impossible. 161 

2 
 You know, do we use the bootstrap 

3 
 method and do we use the actual data to verify 

4 
 it using a respiratory factor versus the 

5 
 other? Because we are going to be in other 

6 
 situations in other sites where the 

7 
 possibility is that NIOSH has to -- you know, 

8 
 they have held pretty firm on we can't take 

9 
 credit for this. 

10 
 And this is what was creating 

11 
 somewhat of a conundrum for me, because I 

12 
 didn't want NIOSH to -- Jenny, I'm glad you 

13 
 brought that up. So I guess we've got two 

14 
 ways that we can look at this. We can use the 

15 
 actual data to verify NIOSH's model. Doing 

16 
 that, we have actually used it, but we are 

17 
 still in the situation where we are not using 

18 the respiratory protection --

19 
 MR. STIVER: You have a consistent 

20 application of policy. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 my issue. And that is what I was trying to 162 

2 
 bring up to you in a way, Stu, without coming 

3 
 out and questioning it, because we are going 

4 
 to get into situations in other sites and 

5 
 stuff like that. We have through the whole 

6 
 process. And we can't take credit for some of 

7 
 the respiratory issues. 

8 
 I guess this comes down to a 

9 
 judgment call on us of how to proceed forward 

10 
 with this. My question is, between the two, 

11 
 from the bootstrap to the SC&A's approach, how 

12 
 much of a difference are we looking at? I 

13 guess, Bob, that --

14 
 MR. BARTON: I don't have NIOSH's 

15 
 number in front of me, but I believe it is 

16 
 somewhere around 100 MAC or something like 

17 that. 

18 
 MR. STIVER: Eighty-five and 130 or 

19 something. 

20 MR. BARTON: Eighty-five? Yes. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The bootstrap 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 document has two techniques. One is using a 163 

2 
 95th percentile, unweighted 95th percentile, 

3 
 of the sampling data. And the 95th percentile 

4 
 of that in 1955 was 135 MAC. 

5 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. That's the 

6 
 number that --

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The bootstrap area 

8 
 result, which was done only for 1955 in that 

9 
 paper, the 95th percentile is 81 MAC. 

10 
 MR. BARTON: And the 

11 
 back-of-the-envelope calculation for that one, 

12 
 686 MAC, brought us in a little bit lower than 

13 
 that. To get a protection factor of 10, it 

14 
 was somewhere in the 70s. A protection factor 

15 of 100 would bring it down to the teens. 

16 
 And I think this idea is that --

17 
 it's kind of like we could be setting a bad 

18 
 precedent both ways. In one way, we could 

19 
 open the door to applying respirator 

20 
 protection. In the other way, we open the 

21 
 door to throwing out data because we feel 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 is too high. 164 

2 
 I think the one facet that is most 

3 
 important about this particular situation is 

4 
 that we -- the data shows us that there is 

5 
 going to be too much dust to breathe in. I 

6 
 mean, it's not an issue of, well, they weren't 

7 
 wearing the respirator or anything like this. 

8 
 They had to be because otherwise they 

9 
 wouldn't be able to breathe in that 

10 
 environment. And I think that is the 

11 important point. 

12 
 So if we are going to talk about 

13 
 policy and how this might apply to other 

14 
 sites, I think that if you encountered 

15 
 situations where, again, we're seeing, you 

16 
 know, 600,000 dpm. And it's just an 

17 
 intolerable dust loading. Then maybe it would 

18 
 be reasonable to take a similar approach and 

19 
 adjust those daily weighted exposures, because 

20 
 I think, honestly, I think it is a more 

21 
 realistic and scientifically defensible way to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 reconstruct doses because the daily weighted 165

2 
 exposure reports are individual workers and 

3 
 defining their exposure potential; whereas, 

4 
 you know, the bootstraps were kind of just 

5 
 reconstructing and taking all of the raw 

6 
 measurements and doing some sampling and then 

7 
 note the 95th percentile. 

8 
 And while they come up with 

9 
 reasonably similar numbers in the same 

10 
 ballpark, I am more comfortable with the 

11 
 respirator approach, even though it actually 

12 
 will give you a lower number than the 

13 
 bootstrap did, because I think it has a better 

14 base in the actual science. 

15 
 MR. STIVER: And the question, of 

16 
 course, was how is that going to be applied in 

17 the --

18 
 MR. BARTON: It will be a very 

19 tricky implementation. I agree. 

20 
 MR. STIVER: Okay. We know the 

21 
 respirators were being used, but given the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 fact that we still don't feel comfortable that 166

2 
 we can really get a handle on what the 

3 
 protection factors might have been, we, 

4 
 nonetheless, need to invoke that with more of 

5 
 a claimant-favorable allowance for potential 

6 
 for higher exposure. So where do you draw the 

7 
 line on it? I guess that's maybe the policy 

8 
 aspect of it. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: Can I just check in with 

10 
 -- I know Paul has to go before noon. Paul, 

11 are you still with us? 

12 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: I am still on the 

13 
 line. I am en route to another location. 

14 
 But, anyway, yes, I think NIOSH has to tell us 

15 
 what they would do specifically in this case. 

16 
 Obviously, we use the real numbers, but if 

17 
 the result is implausible, which it would be 

18 
 in this case, then you have to do something 

19 
 about that. So I guess we need sort of a 

20 
 specific proposal. I think the point that was 

21 
 raised by John is a good one. And you need to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 specify how to handle these kinds of 167 

2 
 situations. 

3 
 MS. LIN: Except but, to clarify, 

4 
 that bootstrap approach that is used 

5 
 specifically for Fernald in 1955, it is still 

6 
 based on the site-specific information. 

7 
 MR. ROLFES: Yes, correct. 

8 
 MS. LIN: And that comes off 

9 
 bootstrap. 

10 MR. ROLFES: Yes. We basically 

11 
 just filled in some missing samples, 

12 
 essentially what we did to re-create a 

13 
 distribution of the air samples if it is still 

14 the real data that --

15 MS. LIN: Right. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: But the thing is you 

17 have high, low, and average, though. 

18 
 MS. LIN: Yes. So both the 

19 
 bootstrap and the proposal that SC&A is 

20 
 suggesting, those are used in the industry. 

21 
 They're not like just something you pulled out 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 of thin air. So Strom used the bootstrap as a 168 

2 
 fall-back, right? And the DWE approach used 

3 
 by you guys is also scientifically valid. And 

4 
 both approaches come out with a sufficient, 

5 
 accurate dose reconstruction value. 

6 
 MR. STIVER: Well, that is a 

7 
 judgment call as to what is sufficiently 

8 
 accurate. The problem I have with the 

9 
 bootstrap is you are taking -- you don't have 

10 
 the real source data. You are inferring what 

11 
 it would have been given the assumption that 

12 
 it's a tight distribution. And so it is one 

13 
 step removed from the actual data that was 

14 
 generated presumably for a worker in a 

15 particular job on a particular day. 

16 
 MS. LIN: Right. And validated by 

17 the real data. 

18 
 MR. KATZ: So is this something 

19 
 that needs to be settled before the -- I mean, 

20 
 is this a TBD issue ultimately or does this 

21 need 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. STIVER: It is almost like 169 

2 
 we're kind of getting into an over-arching 

3 
 issue in some ways. You know, the whole idea 

4 
 of respiratory protection --

5 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: When we first 

6 
 got into this, Ted, it was looking somewhat as 

7 
 an SEC issue, but the more that I have looked 

8 
 into it, we have been able to be able to put 

9 
 it together. So my personal opinion is this is 

10 coming closer to a TBD issue. 

11 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, so my only question 

12 
 is whether if this needs to be an agenda item 

13 
 for the teleconference or, really, this is 

14 
 just something that has more time to be worked 

15 
 out. Does it need more time to be worked out 

16 
 than when we have the teleconference? Because 

17 
 it seems like you have talked it out already 

18 
 as far as it can be talked out here at this 

19 point. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Are we looking for 

21 
 what Paul suggested, that in light 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 discussion today, for us to come back and 170

2 
 propose what we believe would be --

3 
 MR. KATZ: That's a --

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- a good approach? 

5 
 Okay. It will take us some time because we 

6 
 have several people on the phone listening who 

7 
 are smarter than I am. So we will need to 

8 
 have some conversations on our side about why 

9 
 do we think -- you know, what is our approach 

10 
 and why do we think it is the best approach, 

11 having the benefit of the discussion today. 

12 
 And so it will take us a little 

13 
 while to develop. It may take us more than 

14 one discussion. 

15 
 MR. KATZ: So we have a July 1 

16 
 teleconference. Do you think that is 

17 
 something that you are likely to get settled 

18 before --

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, it is 

20 hard for me to predict. 

21 MR. KATZ: 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: We need to get the 171 

2 
 other item done for July 1st. From this, it 

3 
 is a little hard for me to predict because, 

4 
 frankly, our contractors' availability is 

5 
 different than it used to be because of the 

6 
 money situation. 

7 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. My personal deal 

8 
 on this is that this is not something we 

9 
 necessarily have to resolve before the Board 

10 meeting. 

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

12 
 MR. STIVER: It is an 

13 implementation issue. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. So then at the 

15 
 Board meeting, you can update them on the 

16 
 situation and let them know that this is 

17 
 something that the Work Group will continue 

18 on? 

19 MR. STIVER: Right. 

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Correct. 

21 MR. KATZ: 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. 172 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Does that sound like a 

3 
 good resolution there? 

4 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes, because I 

5 
 think after we have gotten into this a little 

6 
 bit deeper, I don't see it as an SEC issue 

7 
 because both demonstrated that, yes, we can do 

8 
 it. It's just what is the best process to be 

9 
 able to do it, because I say this in all 

10 
 sincerity, Stu, when I say that I don't want 

11 
 to push NIOSH into a situation that, well, you 

12 
 did it here, so you need to be able to do it 

13 
 here," but we were in a situation. Throw out 

14 
 the data or whatever. 

15 
 So I don't think that we need to be 

16 
 able to do that. They could give us an update 

17 
 if they had something come up at the 

18 
 teleconference, but myself I think this falls 

19 more into the TBD issue. 

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Just to make sure, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 686 MAC is a little shy of what, 50,000 dpm 173

2 
 per cubic meter? 

3 
 MR. STIVER: It basically 

4 
 translates --

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Seventy? It would 

6 
 be 70 times 686, right? So 70 times 700 is 

7 
 49,000, right, or did I slip a decimal? 

8 
 MR. STIVER: I was looking at it in 

9 
 terms of dose loading, about 100 milligrams 

10 per cubic meter. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So that's about 100 

12 
 milligrams per cubic meter. And how does that 

13 fit in to what is tolerable? 

14 
 MR. STIVER: There are a couple of 

15 
 papers we looked at. Actually, when we did 

16 
 Chapman Valve, this guy, Wes Van Pelt, who is 

17 
 an expert in this area, indicated that --

18 
 well, he actually did a couple of different 

19 
 studies. One was what's respiratory --

20 
 whether it was respirable in terms of 

21 
 tolerance and also what kind of air 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 concentration could be sustained just from the 174

2 
 physics of cloud formation, of particle 

3 
 respiratory size. And that aspect, I think it 

4 
 was a paper by a fellow by the name of Craig 

5 
 in the '70s, who does tell you that he 

6 
 indicated that the highest concentration that 

7 
 could be sustained was about 500 milligrams 

8 
 per cubic meter. And so we are about a factor 

9 
 of five lower than that. 

10 
 But there are a couple of other 

11 
 studies. I know there is a paper by Stewart 

12 
 that John Mauro found in reviewing some of the 

13 
 work for TBD-6000 that indicated about 100 

14 
 milligrams per cubic meter is about the upper 

15 
 limit of physiologic tolerance. We have a 

16 
 couple of different references converging on 

17 
 that number. It felt pretty solid. That 

18 
 number is probably about where we would be 

19 
 drawing the lines to what you couldn't really 

20 
 expect anybody to be able to tolerate it for 

21 any length of time. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And 100,000 175 

2 
 micrograms per cubic meter? 

3 
 MR. STIVER: Depending on the 

4 
 specific activity. 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And then the 686 

6 
 translates into what? 

7 
 MR. STIVER: Six eighty-six 

8 
 translates into, I think it was, 98 milligrams 

9 
 per cubic meter. So roughly --

10 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Right around the 

11 same --

12 MR. STIVER: Roughly around 100. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, what about --

14 
 just before we break for lunch, something else 

15 to think about. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: This is without 

17 respiratory protection. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. What about if 

19 
 we use the DWE value as constant? 

20 
 MR. STIVER: That was the other 

21 
 thing I was thinking was a possibility, would 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 be -- 176 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: As opposed to 

3 
 planning a GSD of 5. 

4 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. Well, it could 

5 
 be used as a constant, but then you still have 

6 
 the issue, is it really feasible for somebody 

7 
 to be breathing at that tolerance limit on a 

8 
 daily basis for a period of --

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. They would be 

10 doing that all year long --

11 
 MR. STIVER: Every day and all year 

12 long. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the same. Yes. 

14 
 I see. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, let me 

16 
 see. 

17 MS. LIN: One last question, 

18 though. Bob? 

19 MR. BARTON: Yes. 

20 
 MS. LIN: Okay. So you were 

21 
 talking about respiratory protection factors 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that could be applied to the value. So you 177 

2 
 said it was a factor of 5 and 10 and 100? 

3 
 MR. BARTON: I did 10 and 100 as 

4 
 sort of a sample conduit. 

5 
 MR. STIVER: This was kind of a 

6 
 scoping calculation. Those aren't real values. 

7 
 MS. LIN: Oh, okay. 

8 
 MR. BARTON: It wouldn't actually 

9 
 effect --

10 MS. LIN: But how would you then 

11 take a factor? 

12 
 MR. STIVER: There are studies 

13 NIOSH has done in recent times --

14 MS. LIN: Okay. 

15 
 MR. STIVER: -- that actually look 

16 
 at concentrations, you know, outside air 

17 
 versus, you know, the inside of a respirator 

18 
 and picking different types of configurations. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: There is lots of 

20 
 research in that area since the '70s, but I 

21 just --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. STIVER: You are trying to 178 

2 
 back-extrapolate, saying, what we have now has 

3 
 always been what they were --

4 
 MR. KATZ: But the technology 

5 
 probably in the early '70s versus the mid-'50s 

6 
 is probably not that different. I don't know. 

7 
 MR. STIVER: Eighteen years is 

8 
 probably not all that --

9 
 MR. KATZ: For that because that 

10 
 industry doesn't evolve that quickly, I 

11 noticed. 

12 (Laughter.) 

13 
 MR. STIVER: There have been a lot 

14 of redevelopments in respirator technology. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, but I have 

16 
 to fall back on my personal thing. Jenny, 

17 
 when we go into a certain area, depending on 

18 
 what the DAC is in there, they tell us what 

19 
 type of respiratory that we use. All of our 

20 
 stuff was qualified. And part of what I have 

21 
 heard from these earlier years, they used to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 just leave the airline respirators hanging on 179

2 
 the wall. And this is why I am in such an 

3 
 issue of not using it or using it, because the 

4 
 processes that we use now are much different. 

5 
 I mean, I have heard people talking 

6 
 about blowing the dust out of the mask before 

7 
 they can put them back on. And I am sitting 

8 
 there, "holy cow." 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Early in my career, 

10 respirators were reused. Absolutely. 

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And reused. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: They were reused 

13 early in my career. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. And I'll 

15 
 be honest. This is where we're into a 

16 
 situation here. But my number one concern is, 

17 
 number one, that we give the claimant the 

18 
 benefit of the doubt, but then also, if we 

19 
 have the data, that we actually use the data 

20 
 when the data is actually telling us it is 

21 almost physically impossible. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, we are not 180 

2 
 going to solve that today, are we? So --

3 
 MR. STIVER: I think NIOSH can come 

4 
 back with some proposals on this. 

5 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Brad? 

6 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes? 

7 
 MEMBER ZIEMER: Brad? This is 

8 
 Ziemer. I have to sign off. So hopefully 

9 
 I'll be back later in the day. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. I 

11 appreciate your input, Paul. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Thank you. 

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Good luck. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Paul. 

15 
 MR. ROLFES: This is Mark. I was 

16 
 just going to offer that individual dose 

17 
 reconstruction, sometimes for the -- you know, 

18 
 not for any particular site, but when we 

19 
 interpret bioassay data; for example, 

20 
 plutonium bioassay data, the further away from 

21 
 intake date that a bioassay sample is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 collected you are going to start getting a 181

2 
 higher and higher intake if you have an 

3 
 exposure. And then the further away the 

4 
 bioassay sample is collected, the larger the 

5 
 intake is going to be. 

6 
 And then when we make assumptions 

7 
 about the type of plutonium, for example, that 

8 
 a person is exposed to, and basically knowing 

9 
 about the biokinetics of plutonium, if you 

10 
 assume that it is Type S material, these are 

11 
 some of the assumptions that we make in a dose 

12 
 reconstruction that if you would look at the 

13 
 actual air concentration of plutonium that the 

14 
 person had to have been exposed to, you can 

15 
 get some very high numbers in a similar 

16 
 situation. The only difference is what we're 

17 
 talking about is a low specific activity 

18 material. 

19 
 So the mass of the material in the 

20 
 air is what sort of sets this apart from other 

21 
 approaches that we use in 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 It's something that we handle in dose 182 

2 
 reconstructions. And it's almost a 

3 
 routine-type thing. You can get some pretty 

4 
 high air concentrations when you interpret and 

5 
 make claimant-favorable assumptions about a 

6 
 bioassay sample. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: You wouldn't 

8 
 encounter this kind of airborne limit. You 

9 
 know, the air just can't hold that much to 

10 
 where people can't tolerate with a lower 

11 
 specific activity, short of half-life 

12 material. 

13 
 MR. STIVER: Mark's point is 

14 
 well-taken. I mean, you make a lot of 

15 
 claimant-favorable assumptions that are 

16 
 probably not realistic. But, yet, it doesn't 

17 
 result in a situation where it's clearly, you 

18 know, it's not possible. 

19 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Physically 

20 impossible, yes. 

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. KATZ: Should we take a break 183
 

2 
 for lunch? 

3 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. 

4 
 MR. KATZ: And rejoin about 1:00 

5 
 o'clock? It's almost noon right now. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Sounds good. 

7 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you, 

8 
 everyone on the line. And we'll start back up 

9 
 again at 1:00 p.m. 

10 
 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

11 
 matter went off the record at 11:55 a.m. and 

12 
 resumed at 1:03 p.m.) 

13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 184
 

2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 185 

2 
 (1:03 p.m.) 

3 
 MR. KATZ: This is the Fernald Work 

4 
 Group Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

5 
 Health. We're just returning after lunch 

6 
 break. 

7 
 (Roll call.) 

8 
 MR. KATZ: So we're good to go. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. With 

10 
 that, I will turn it back over to you, John, 

11 and proceed on down. 

12 
 4. THORIUM-232 COWORKER MODEL BASED ON 

13 CHEST COUNT DATA FOR 1978-1988 PERIOD; 

14 
 IMPLEMENTATION 

15 
 MR. STIVER: Okay. Yes. This is 

16 
 John Stiver. The next issue that was on the 

17 
 agenda is the in vivo thorium model for the 

18 
 1979 to 1988 time frame. And I guess the 

19 
 issue that came out of the last Work Group 

20 
 meeting and kind of a culmination of a series 

21 
 of White Paper exchanges is that we're 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 agreement with DCAS that it is possible to 186

2 
 bound the doses for the intakes of thorium 

3 
 based on the in vivo accounts that are 

4 
 reported in units of nanocuries, actinium-228 

5 
 and lead-212. And there is also the 

6 
 claimant-favorable assumption of triple 

7 
 separation for the thorium, which then results 

8 
 in a disequilibrium factor of about five for 

9 
 lead-212 in relation to thorium-232. We agree 

10 that that is a claimant-favorable approach. 

11 
 One thing that was kind of 

12 
 outstanding, though, is that a lot of the 

13 
 results, the positive results, kind of 

14 
 indicate the higher levels of actinium-228 

15 
 than would be expected. And oftentimes or 

16 
 maybe not oftentimes because there are not 

17 
 that many positive results to begin with, but 

18 
 there are several instances where there is a 

19 
 positive actinium measurement and there's a 

20 sub-MDA lead-212 measurement. 

21 
 Then the question becomes, 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 
 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 what do you do in a situation where you have a 187

2 
 positive actinium and no lead-212? And how do 

3 
 you ever get back to thorium from a situation 

4 
 like this? 

5 
 And I have put together a response 

6 
 in action item 7, where they looked at the 

7 
 data. If I did this wrong, you guys be sure 

8 
 to correct me. It looked at all the different 

9 
 data and used a report 44 technique to 

10 
 characterize the background distribution as a 

11 
 normal distribution centered around zero and 

12 
 then a log-normal fit to the values greater 

13 
 than the MDA, which would then allow you to 

14 
 separate out the sub-MDA data, then reboot the 

15 
 noise and really look at the positive data. 

16 
 And in a situation where there was an offset 

17 
 of a mean from the zero -- they were pretty 

18 
 small offsets, as I recall, like about a tenth 

19 
 of the MDA value in most cases. And there 

20 
 would just be a correction that currently is 

21 
 the bias in the data. There might be bias 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 way or the other because of the -- you know, 188

2 
 in theory at least, the background 

3 
 distribution should be centered around zero 

4 
 that's a true noise. 

5 
 And so they went ahead and they 

6 
 adjusted the actinium and lead data and, based 

7 
 on the 95th percentile, I believe, of the 

8 
 background distribution, came up with kind of 

9 
 an average detection limit, about .12 

10 
 nanocuries. And using a kind of a rule of 

11 
 thumb of twice that for the MDA of 1.96, you 

12 
 are looking at about .24 nanocuries for 

13 
 detection limit. And this comports well with 

14 
 the actual measurements that were generated 

15 for the in vivo system. 

16 
 So we found that at least it seems 

17 
 to be -- as far as looking at the actual data 

18 
 generated from the system, you should be able 

19 
 to re-create. The detection limit and the 

20 
 background and all seem to be correct using 

21 
 two different approaches, the actual 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 calibrations. You are using the actual data 189 

2 
 to get back to that. 

3 
 However, there are a few situations 

4 
 where there is a high actinium value. I think 

5 
 the highest is like 18 times the lead value. 

6 
 And, rather than try to use that actinium and 

7 
 assume some level of disequilibrium to get 

8 
 back to thorium, you guys have kind of invoked 

9 
 the possibility of unsupported radium-226 as 

10 the cause for these high values. 

11 
 And so I guess we were kind of 

12 
 curious about that because it sort of opens up 

13 
 an awful realm of radium exposure and 

14 
 raffinate exposure for the thorium. Granted, 

15 
 there are very few of these values, but I 

16 
 haven't really looked at the source data in 

17 
 detail. But it seems to me if you have a 

18 
 ratio of 18, that would be indicative of maybe 

19 
 a contaminated sample or a bad sample that 

20 
 maybe really isn't indicative of workplace 

21 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 
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 You know, you also use the triple 190

2 
 separation to get a kind of upper bound on 

3 
 what the ratio of actinium to lead would be. 

4 
 I think it was about 1.5 or so. So you sort 

5 
 of use that as a cutoff. And above that would 

6 
 be presumed to be a radium exposure. 

7 
 I know Joyce had had some questions 

8 
 about that. She is probably closer to this 

9 
 than I am. I am kind of giving the 

10 
 broad-brush stroke overview. But, Joyce, are 

11 
 there some particular issues that you would 

12 like --

13 
 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. I say it is 

14 
 okay. Maybe there is a radium source, but 

15 
 there are other scenarios that are also 

16 
 possible. I would say that things like that 

17 
 are complicated. And maybe there are other 

18 
 scenarios that are bounding and that could 

19 
 explain the actinium being higher than the lab 

20 activity. 

21 
 We know all NIOSH papers 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 TBD on internal doses assumes that the 191 

2 
 production years went up to 1979. And the 

3 
 reason for the positive results after '79 was 

4 
 that workers were assigned to some maintenance 

5 
 duty for thorium or repackaging of thorium for 

6 
 shipping, et cetera. 

7 
 What happens is that lead-212 is 

8 
 very sensitive to the number of separations 

9 
 that is assumed. So one bounding approach, 

10 
 the lead-212 result is to assume actually full 

11 separation. But that is just a --

12 
 MR. KATZ: Joyce, we just lost you. 

13 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I'm sorry? 

14 
 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, Joyce. Just 

15 
 a moment ago, we lost you, whatever you were 

16 saying. You went quiet there. 

17 
 DR. LIPSZTEIN: I'm saying, did you 

18 
 get up to '79 with the production years of 

19 thorium? 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We did get 

21 that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. STIVER: We got that. 192 

2 
 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. So after the 

3 
 production years, then we have measurements of 

4 
 lead and actinium. While lead-212 is very 

5 
 sensitive to the number of separations that 

6 
 the source had, immediately after the 

7 
 exposure, after the source is separated while 

8 
 actinium, it's not a fact that by the number 

9 
 of separations because it comes just after 

10 
 thorium-232 and radium, but it is very 

11 
 sensitive to the lag of time between 

12 measurement and separations. 

13 
 So one other plausible scenario for 

14 
 actinium-228 results being higher than the 

15 
 lead-212 results is that the time between 

16 
 separation and thorium exposures or thorium 

17 
 measurements is long. So if you have more 

18 
 than a year after the separation, you find 

19 
 that actinium-228 might be higher than 

20 
 lead-212 depending, of course, on the number 

21 
 of separation. Let's assume the three 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 separation like NIOSH assumed. 193 

2 
 So I think it's not -- you know, I 

3 
 would not be surprised to have actinium-228 

4 
 measurements higher than lead-212 if the 

5 
 separations stopped in '79 because it will 

6 
 come -- like measurements would be one, two, 

7 
 three years after the separation. So the 

8 
 actinium-228 will rise. And you will end up 

9 
 having high activity of actinium-228 in the 

10 lungs. 

11 
 So I think this discussion is not 

12 
 an SEC issue but is a TBD issue, while we have 

13 
 to take into account the value scenarios that 

14 
 actinium-228 would be higher than lead-212 and 

15 
 see which scenario is more bounding to 

16 interpret the data. 

17 
 I think it's -- you know, I'm not 

18 
 saying that exposure to additional radium-228 

19 
 is not possible. Of course, it is. But then 

20 
 we would have to go into what source of 

21 
 radium-228, how much. And you can 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 same results if you just know that the 194 

2 
 separations ended in '79, measurements were 

3 
 done after '79. So we would expect actinium 

4 
 to build. 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. This is Stu. 

6 
 So, Joyce, what you are proposing, then, is, 

7 
 rather than just make the blanket statement 

8 
 that if the actinium-228 is more than 1.5 

9 
 times the lead-212, then we consider this 

10 
 radium intake. That is what we are proposing. 

11 
 What you are saying is, as an alternative, 

12 
 look at the date of the measurement compared 

13 
 to 1979, which would have been the last 

14 separation. 

15 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. 

16 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And then, based on 

17 
 that, perhaps draw some -- you know, see what 

18 
 your expected actinium ratio would be. Okay. 

19 I can --

20 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Exactly. 

21 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I think I would 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 like to see sort of something in writing to 195

2 
 complete it because I am struggling with how 

3 
 we are not bounding by doing what we propose 

4 
 and it --

5 
 DR. LIPSZTEIN: No, no. You aren't 

6 
 bounding what you propose when you have 

7 
 lead-212, but then sometimes you don't have 

8 
 the lead-212 results. You just have actinium. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

10 
 DR. LIPSZTEIN: So if you consider 

11 
 the time after separation, you can use the 

12 
 actinium results also. So you have more data. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So you would 

14 
 say use the actinium monitoring result to 

15 determine your thorium-232? 

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, yes, yes. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

18 
 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Knowing that the 

19 separation ended in '79 and before '79. 

20 
 MR. ROLFES: So are you proposing, 

21 
 then, instead of using like the MDA value 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 lead-212 like we would sign the waste intake 196

2 
 based upon the minimum detectable amount of 

3 
 lead-212, we should use the actinium-228 or 

4 
 whichever is more favorable? Is that --

5 
 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, yes, whichever 

6 
 has positive results. 

7 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So you feel like 

8 
 it's more desirable to use a detectable 

9 
 actinium-228 result with an estimate of the 

10 time since separation --

11 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to predict --

13 
 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Like, for example, 

14 
 with my monitoring work in Brazil, we in 

15 
 general use actinium-228 because lead-212 has 

16 
 a problem with what rate. So sometimes 

17 lead-212 is high because of radium. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

19 
 DR. LIPSZTEIN: But we don't have 

20 
 the same with actinium. The problem with 

21 
 actinium is that it is very sensitive to the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 time after separation. But once you know when 197 

2 
 separation ended, then the actinium result is 

3 
 okay. And you have a lot of positive actinium 

4 
 results. So you have more data that are 

5 
 useable that you have positive results. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I am going 

7 
 to ask the ORAU people on the phone if they 

8 
 see any particular issue with that approach. 

9 
 MS. JESSEN: Tom, do you want to 

10 answer that? 

11 
 MR. LaBONE: This is Tom. The one 

12 
 statement I would make is that in a universe 

13 
 where you can have triple separated thorium, 

14 
 you have to have radium-228 by itself. And so 

15 
 I understand. I don't know all the ins and 

16 
 outs about how this material is handled, but 

17 
 if you have these separations going on, 

18 
 somewhere in that facility, there has got to 

19 
 be radium-228 by itself because it has a long 

20 enough half-life. 

21 
 The practical problem I see 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 what Joyce is saying is that I don't know if 198

2 
 separation ends in '78 or '79, and I have a 

3 
 chest count in '81. Do I assume there have 

4 
 been two years of in-growth from the 

5 
 thorium-232? Is that what you --

6 
 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, Tom, because 

7 
 after a certain time, it is very sensitive 

8 
 until the first of the year. And then the 

9 
 actinium-228 becomes almost stable after this 

10 
 bypass, for example. So you can rely on the 

11 
 actinium-228 measurements. And then, you 

12 
 know, you don't have to make any hypothesis 

13 
 about some radium that you don't know how much 

14 
 radium it is. And then the actinium doesn't 

15 
 have -- you know, because you have to first 

16 
 see where actinium is very sensitive to the 

17 time after separation. 

18 
 Then after one year, it becomes a 

19 
 little bit more stable. And what you see is 

20 
 really with the workers that have a lot of 

21 
 actinium-positive results. If you plot the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 actinium with the years, it is relatively 199

2 
 constant. So you will have positive results, 

3 
 and you will know how to interpret it. And 

4 
 you don't have to go into how much radium was 

5 
 there and how much was formed and how much the 

6 
 person was really exposed when he was in the 

7 
 packaging or when he was doing some 

8 
 maintenance duty. 

9 
 MR. LaBONE: Okay. I think it 

10 
 would be good to look at what you are 

11 
 proposing and then see how that compares with 

12 
 this default separated thorium. I think a lot 

13 
 of it comes down to and how was this material 

14 
 being handled during the time frame of the 

15 late '70s and up to the '80s. 

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. 

17 
 MR. LaBONE: You know, was there a 

18 
 possibility of free radium-228 and things like 

19 
 that? We can compare it and see which one 

20 looks more appropriate. 

21 
 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. Sounds good. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. Is 200 

2 
 that something we can do from this 

3 
 conversation or do we need some sort of 

4 
 product from Joyce or SC&A to proceed or do we 

5 
 know enough from this conversation to go ahead 

6 
 and do that comparison? 

7 
 MR. LaBONE: Probably the fastest 

8 
 way is for me to go ahead and do it and then 

9 
 send it to Joyce and say, "Hey, is this what 

10 
 you're talking about?" because I think I know 

11 
 what she is talking about. And I can just go 

12 ahead and work it up. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Excellent. 

14 
 Excellent. 

15 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Joyce. 

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. 

17 MR. STIVER: Thanks, Joyce. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: But I want to 

19 
 make sure that all of us understand that this 

20 is basically coming down to a TBD and --

21 MR. STIVER: Yes. It's a 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: -- it's not, you 201 

2 
 know, both sides being able to prove we can 

3 
 bound this. So this stuff that we don't need 

4 
 before the --

5 
 MR. STIVER: Right. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Well, 

7 
 that was --

8 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, wonderful. 

9 
 MR. STIVER: That was really all we 

10 
 had on the table, were those three big issues. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Nineteen 

12 fifty-three. 

13 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Nineteen 

15 fifty-three, thorium. 

16 
 MR. STIVER: That's right. Yes. 

17 
 Thanks for reminding me. For the DWE model, 

18 
 there was a placeholder for '53. And I would 

19 
 note that it was to be determined sometime in 

20 
 June. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Our thorium 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 timeline starts in 1954 because that's when 202

2 
 the bulk of the thorium work happened, but we 

3 
 did have some thorium air samples from 1953. 

4 
 And so you guys said, "Well, what do you do in 

5 
 about '53?" 

6 
 So in going back and looking at the 

7 
 origin of those 1953 air samples, the ones 

8 
 that I have seen are from what was called the 

9 
 Experimental Machine Shop. And they were 

10 
 machining thorium, which had been -- thorium 

11 
 out of the lead had been made elsewhere. I 

12 
 think it was Simonds Saw and Steel, but one of 

13 the AWEs. 

14 
 And so they received this thorium 

15 
 metal. And they were in the "Experimental 

16 
 Machine Shop" apparently figuring out how to 

17 
 machine this stuff that they were going to 

18 
 have to machine, kind of a pilot plant-type 

19 activity. 

20 
 In fact, the Experimental Machine 

21 
 Shop was just kind of right there by the pilot 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 plant. That's where it existed, is building 203 

2 
 3045. I knew it was building 3045. I didn't 

3 
 know it was Experimental Machine Shop when I 

4 
 was there. 

5 
 So it appears that we do have some 

6 
 air-sampling data. It looks like since it was 

7 
 an Experimental Machine Shop, you know, they 

8 
 would do thorium sometimes and they would do 

9 
 uranium sometimes. And so there is going to 

10 
 be a limited amount of probably work that was 

11 
 done. And we do have some air-sampling data 

12 
 that we have compiled. We don't have a 

13 
 compilation that shows things like duration 

14 
 that would give you the amount of information 

15 you need to build a DWE kind of information. 

16 
 But since we have to do something 

17 
 about '64 through '67 anyway, right, we have 

18 
 to do something about that anyway, I think the 

19 
 same kind of information about getting the 

20 
 total amount of air data we have down in some 

21 
 sort of spreadsheet or something where you can 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 see all of the data we have with those data 204

2 
 points and coming up with a proposal for this 

3 
 is what we think might bound that work, again, 

4 
 this looks like it is probably sort of 

5 
 intermittent, like they would machine with 

6 
 thorium and for a while and then --

7 
 MR. STIVER: They're not involved 

8 
 in a production operation here. It's just a 

9 
 matter of you've got some air concentrations 

10 
 during machining activities. And so if we 

11 
 could go ahead and compile that data along 

12 
 with the '64 to '67 and we can all look at it 

13 at one time, it would --

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I think that 

15 
 is what we will have to do. We started a 

16 
 compilation. I want to make sure we get that. 

17 
 I think I would like a little more expanse 

18 
 because the compilation we have doesn't 

19 
 include like all of the information you would 

20 
 see on an air-sampling data sheet, which to me 

21 sometimes that is really informative. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. STIVER: Right. 205 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: It tells you how 

3 
 long an operation ran and --

4 
 MR. STIVER: It sounds like you've 

5 
 got some SRDBs to go along with that. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We found some 

7 
 SRDB air sample data, air sample data sheets 

8 
 from '53, in building 3045 while they were 

9 
 machining thorium and we found some while they 

10 were machining uranium as well. 

11 
 MR. STIVER: We'll just roll that 

12 
 in as one task, I guess, go ahead and look at 

13 
 all of the thorium put together. So I guess 

14 at this point. 

15 
 MR. BARTON: Actually, John, I have 

16 
 one more. And it kind of relates to both the 

17 
 DWE and this --

18 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

19 
 MR. BARTON: -- in vivo thorium. 

20 
 And it kind of has to do with the 

21 
 implementation of the model. Basically 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 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 we have said is, you know, aside from the 206

2 
 triple separation, such that, you know, if you 

3 
 are a thorium worker or it is suspected that 

4 
 you could have been handling thorium in the in 

5 
 vivo period, that you would be assigned in the 

6 
 95th percentile. And obviously with a DWE, if 

7 
 you are suspected of handling thorium, then 

8 
 you are going to get the highest DWE value 

9 
 with maybe some different ones in there for 

10 the pilot plant in the late '60s and whatnot. 

11 
 I guess what I would feel to be 

12 
 beneficial to both of these is if we give a 

13 
 little bit more specific information as to who 

14 
 these are being applied to. Based on the 

15 
 write-ups for this meeting, it kind of appears 

16 
 that they will leave it up to the dose 

17 
 reconstructor. 

18 
 And if the dose reconstructor feels 

19 
 they could have handled thorium and will be 

20 
 assigned the 95th percentile or, you know, the 

21 
 maximum MAC value -- I will use Simonds as 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 sort of a precedent example. In that case, 207 

2 
 the coworker model was actually delineated. 

3 
 And we're still kind of fleshing this out, 

4 
 but, I mean, basically where DCAS and SC&A 

5 
 agreed was that if you were a plant worker at 

6 
 Simonds, then you are going to get the 95th 

7 
 percentile where if you were just an office 

8 
 worker and you really had very limited 

9 
 exposure potential, then you would get the 50. 

10 
 And it is my personal opinion that 

11 
 I think both coworker models in this case for 

12 
 thorium would benefit from that type of 

13 classification. 

14 
 And I know we can't micromanage 

15 
 everything. We can't say every single job 

16 
 type will be fit into whichever bin, but I 

17 
 think some guidance should be put there if, 

18 
 for nothing else, transparency in what the 

19 
 policy of how you are going to assign sort of 

20 
 these different -- in the case of the in vivo 

21 
 thorium, in different strata, you know, 95th 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 for some; 50th for others, but some guidance 208

2 
 as to how that is going to work, whether that 

3 
 is the operators or the plant-wide workers or 

4 
 just some sort of further specific guidance as 

5 
 to how we're going to implement these models, 

6 
 which we basically mostly in principle agreed 

7 
 upon, but it's really kind of ambiguous as to 

8 
 how you are going to assign it and to who. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And so this would 

10 then be Site Profile kinds of questions. 

11 MR. BARTON: Yes, absolutely. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. For a little 

13 
 more specificity about how we'll apply --

14 okay. 

15 
 MR. BARTON: At some point you need 

16 
 some professional judgment by the dose 

17 
 reconstructor as to what to assign who, but, I 

18 
 mean, as of now, the entire decision is kind 

19 
 of left up in the air without any specific 

20 
 guidance. And whether that's -- like I said, 

21 
 you know, all plant workers are going to be 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 one bin and office workers in another or some 209

2 
 other strata. 

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Until we have the 

4 
 two models, the DWE, for lack of a better 

5 
 term, the thorium air data model, those years 

6 
 up through '67, and then from --

7 
 MR. BARTON: '79. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- '79 through '88, 

9 
 roughly, '89 for --

10 
 MR. BARTON: '89. '89 uses the '88 

11 data. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. For that 

13 period, then, the in vivo model. 

14 MR. BARTON: Right, right. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So we've got the 

16 two models. 

17 MR. BARTON: Right, two models. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: What specific 

19 
 direction in terms of full distribution, 95th 

20 percentiles, you know, who gets what? 

21 MR. BARTON: 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 
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So that 210 

2 
 would be a task for us for Site Profile. We 

3 
 haven't worked that out anyway to give you 

4 
 those reconstructions. So it's a task we've 

5 
 got to do anyway. 

6 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. It seems to me 

7 
 that some kind of a guidance as to these jobs 

8 
 would fall into this bin for the in vivo, 95th 

9 
 percentile and dose reconstruction, we would 

10 
 have to do the due diligence to determine what 

11 
 this person was doing and if they were that 

12 
 particular job, to have to go into that depth, 

13 
 but to have them make all the decisions as to 

14 
 whether they feel that this guy was exposed to 

15 
 -- in a certain level, I think is a little too 

16 
 much to put on the dose reconstruction. You 

17 might wind up with some big inconsistencies. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Well, we 

19 
 generally try to provide a lot more 

20 
 instruction to the dose reconstructors so that 

21 
 we get -- you know, we want to do these things 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 consistently. And then there's a dose 211 

2 
 reconstructor. There's a peer reviewer and 

3 
 then an HQ reviewer on our side. There are a 

4 
 couple of layers of review. But the key is to 

5 
 get some guidance out there that can be 

6 
 interpreted consistently by various people --

7 
 MR. STIVER: Right. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- because that is 

9 
 what you are talking about. 

10 
 MR. STIVER: The DWE model the way 

11 
 I understand it, they are buying off on 

12 
 basically a one-size-fits-all model. You get 

13 the number. 

14 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. You get the 

15 DWE --

16 MR. STIVER: Everybody in the --

17 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Everyone who is 

18 
 potentially exposed. I mean, there could be 

19 
 some -- yes. I don't know whether it was --

20 
 there could be administrative people where 

21 
 you've got strong evidence to believe 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 
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 were never out in the process area. They may 212 

2 
 get some sort of environmental thing, but if 

3 
 you're going to be --

4 
 MR. STIVER: Right. 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- someone who is 

6 
 potentially exposed, you get that thorium 

7 
 model. 

8 
 MR. STIVER: Right. Yes. So that 

9 
 type of guidance is --

10 
 MR. BARTON: Yes. Some discussion 

11 
 along those lines to kind of buttress up these 

12 
 coworker models I think would be beneficial, 

13 but like it is a --

14 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, and also, 

15 
 Stu, especially being -- maybe this is my 

16 
 standpoint being on the Dose Reconstruction 

17 
 Work Group. We see these sometimes 

18 
 inadequacies. So we're just kind of figuring 

19 
 if we culled this out at the beginning so we 

20 
 had a better idea of how it was going to be 

21 
 out. We wouldn't be seeing these up here 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 any kind of dose reconstruction issues. 213 

2 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, sure. 

3 
 MR. STIVER: Okay. So we are 

4 
 looking at a teleconference on the 1st. 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

6 
 MR. STIVER: And for that, if DCAS 

7 
 could provide us with the spreadsheet data for 

8 
 the DWE years for which there is still some 

9 
 uncertainty? 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

11 
 MR. STIVER: I guess we can 

12 
 postpone the Plant 9, 1955. We don't have to 

13 
 resolve that before the meeting. So I think 

14 
 we should be in pretty good shape for that. 

15 
 Tom LaBone is going to provide us with a 

16 
 discussion, kind of a comparison about the 

17 
 radium versus Joyce's approach for the in 

18 
 vivo. And so I think overall we are in pretty 

19 
 good shape, then, going into the next meeting. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, are you going 

21 to do something about the start year 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. We are going to 214 

2 
 take a look at the --

3 
 MR. HINNEFELD: -- sometime? 

4 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, the bookend years 

5 
 on the early side, '53 to '54 --

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

7 
 MR. STIVER: -- to get an idea of 

8 
 where there really is exposure potential. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

10 
 MR. KATZ: So we'll catch up 

11 
 everyone on that at the Work Group 

12 teleconference. 

13 MR. STIVER: Right, right. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So we are only 

15 
 addressing one issue that is an SEC issue. 

16 
 And that is, what, '63 to '67 time period or 

17 '64? 

18 
 MR. STIVER: That is still up in 

19 
 the air regarding what they came up with as 

20 
 far as DWE data. Then we have the other SEC 

21 definition for the period of time. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. 215 

2 
 MR. STIVER: So we're going to be 

3 
 at the low end on that. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And we're in 

5 
 agreement that the other ones are TBD issues 

6 
 and can be addressed --

7 
 MR. STIVER: Correct. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: -- at this time. 

9 
 MS. LIN: I think it might be 

10 
 helpful to have like some or maybe even just 

11 
 one slide showing exactly what the Work Group 

12 
 is recommending to the Board, not just the SEC 

13 
 Class but what dose and what year could be 

14 constructed and that --

15 
 MR. STIVER: For what aspect are 

16 you talking about now? 

17 
 MS. LIN: So your confirmation is 

18 not just focusing on the SEC --

19 
 MR. STIVER: Well, there are still 

20 outstanding TBD issues. 

21 MS. LIN: 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 
 

 

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. STIVER: Actually, there are 216 

2 
 quite a few of them. 

3 
 MS. LIN: But I think it would be 

4 
 really good to list out the years and the 

5 
 radionuclide that happened to determine. It 

6 
 could be found what are some of the remaining 

7 


8 
 MR. STIVER: Okay. Yes. Sure. 

9 
 MR. HINNEFELD: The most recent 

10 discussions. 

11 
 MR. STIVER: Yes, the most recent 

12 
 discussions. Yes. I have some slides that I 

13 can modify pretty quickly. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. Just so that the 

15 
 Board is up to date on what SEC issues are 

16 closed out as no longer --

17 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

18 
 MR. KATZ: -- being SEC issues as 

19 well as --

20 
 MR. STIVER: We follow onto the 

21 last presentation. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. KATZ: Right. 217 

2 
 MR. STIVER: I did give an update. 

3 
 Okay. 

4 
 MR. KATZ: That would be great. 

5 
 Right. 

6 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Hang on a minute. 

7 
 I'm trying to take notes here. Our 

8 
 spreadsheets on the air data, '64 to '67 and 

9 
 '53 and what we conclude from that as an 

10 approach for that. 

11 MR. STIVER: Okay. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: A comparison of the 

13 
 in vivo unsupported thorium that we propose 

14 
 versus what Joyce proposed. We owe you one 

15 other thing, don't we? 

16 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. What else have 

17 we got? 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: They're not. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: I think there is one 

20 
 other. 

21 MR. ROLFES: We were talking 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 whether -- well, if we wanted to apply a 218

2 
 protection factor for air --

3 
 MR. STIVER: Oh, yes. The 

4 
 protection factor, yes. 

5 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, okay. Yes. 

6 
 MR. ROLFES: Yes. There was an 

7 
 approach, the bootstrap versus protection 

8 
 factor. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: Right, right. That was 

10 the third item. 

11 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And we were going 

12 
 to give some specificity about how the models 

13 would be applied. 

14 MR. STIVER: Yes. 

15 
 MR. HINNEFELD: That's what I was 

16 thinking. 

17 MR. ROLFES: Yes. 

18 
 MR. KATZ: Oh, implementation, 

19 
 right. So, then, for the Fernald session, I 

20 
 think it's a question, not an assertion, but I 

21 
 think we are probably okay if John presents 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 the update for all the Work Group's done. 219We 

2 
 don't really need a NIOSH presentation per se, 

3 
 just preparation --

4 
 MR. HINNEFELD: I endorse that 

5 
 wholeheartedly. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

7 
 (Laughter.) 

8 
 MR. KATZ: I just wanted to make 

9 
 sure that --

10 MR. STIVER: I could do it together 

11 as a team, Stu. 

12 
 MR. HINNEFELD: No. I suffer from 

13 overexposure to these meetings already. 

14 MR. STIVER: I know. I told --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: If you can --

16 
 MR. STIVER: The last time your 

17 voice was gone about halfway through. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Don't make 

19 
 me. I really badly planned one of them. I 

20 
 had like three presentations at one of them. 

21 
 And I'm the boss. I shouldn't have to 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that. 220 

2 
 (Laughter.) 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Brad, do you want to do 

4 
 an introduction or just --

5 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, actually, 

6 
 what I was going to do was let John give a 

7 
 brief overview on that. And then I was going 

8 
 to just give a short presentation as to what 

9 
 the Work Group is presenting to the Board. 

10 
 MR. KATZ: So I'll have John first. 

11 And then you will --

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. 

13 
 MR. KATZ: -- be the clean-up 

14 batter. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. So it 

16 
 will give them a background of where we are at 

17 
 and this is what the Work Group is bringing 

18 before them. 

19 
 MR. KATZ: Great. So it sounds 

20 good. 

21 
 MR. STIVER: That's good. Set the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 stage. How much time do we have allocated for 221 

2 
 Fernald? 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Quite a bit. I think I 

4 
 allocated an hour and a half. 

5 
 MR. STIVER: We don't need quite 

6 
 that much. 

7 
 MR. KATZ: You may not need all of 

8 
 that. 

9 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. We can rejigger 

10 things. 

11 
 MR. KATZ: But I know I did. So 

12 put it on the side of --

13 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: But as far as 

14 
 this goes -- and I took a little of it for 

15 
 presumption from Paul when he said that he was 

16 endorsing on this construction. 

17 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Except for the 

19 
 earlier years, that I was going to have a vote 

20 
 with him gone. But he had already said he had 

21 
 supported that, that I was going to present 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 to the Board that this recommendation -- 222 

2 
 MR. KATZ: It is, right. No. 

3 
 That's why I asked Bill to speak on the 

4 
 record. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right, yes. And 

6 
 I just wanted to clarify that. And that's why 

7 
 I pushed Paul a little bit on that, was so 

8 
 that this can be -- because I knew he was 

9 
 going to be gone. 

10 MR. KATZ: Right. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So this will be 

12 a recommendation, the Board and --

13 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. The other thing, 

14 
 just to give some thought to John and Stu, is 

15 
 what sort of background materials would be 

16 
 useful for the Board in hearing these 

17 
 presentations for those Board Members that 

18 
 like to know a little deeper than what gets 

19 presented. 

20 
 MR. HINNEFELD: So background 

21 
 information we would provide on the O: drive 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 for them? 223 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, yes, meaning just 

3 
 White Papers, whatever, but I know there is 

4 
 way too much on Fernald in general. So just 

5 
 trying to limit it to a few that would inform 

6 
 them a little more on what they're going to 

7 
 hear. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We've got 

9 
 plenty for Fernald. It was recently. I think 

10 Mark is still compliant on that. 

11 
 MR. KATZ: I heard a little bit 

12 about that. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, and we 

14 
 have tried for the last year and a half, if 

15 
 I'm not mistaken, Mark, to make sure that 

16 
 Board Members are up to date on the papers 

17 
 that we have processed and what they have got 

18 
 in there. So they should have most of them. 

19 It's just --

20 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. I mean, a lot of 

21 
 these messages just go to the Work Group 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 Fernald, these White Papers. 224 

2 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. 

3 
 MR. KATZ: They generally just go. 

4 
 And I will make those available, but if there 

5 
 are some in particular that are useful, that's 

6 
 what I want to know so I can point the Board 

7 
 Members to them. 

8 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. I have a listing 

9 
 that I put out there in 2010. So I'll update 

10 that. It's kind of an overview. 

11 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. That is going to 

12 
 get too extensive because that -- I don't want 

13 to throw 40 documents --

14 
 MR. STIVER: No. I mean, sort of 

15 
 like a guide, "These are the issues. These 

16 
 are the pertinent documents that relate to 

17 it." 

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: But I would like 

20 
 to separate off the previous and what we have 

21 addressed. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 MR. STIVER: Yes. We're trying to 225 

2 
 keep the focus directed on the most recent 

3 
 developments. I mean, otherwise we run the 

4 
 risk of --

5 
 MR. KATZ: Right. 

6 
 MR. STIVER: You have seen in the 

7 
 past. 

8 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Do you guys write 

9 
 to the O: drive? Do you save things on the O: 

10 drive? 

11 MR. BARTON: Yes. 

12 MR. STIVER: Oh, yes. 

13 
 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So I think 

14 
 we could compile a folder on the O: drive for 

15 
 Fernald, just say "July 2013 Board meeting." 

16 And so it is easy for them to find. 

17 MR. STIVER: Right. 

18 
 MR. HINNEFELD: And they'll have to 

19 look in that --

20 
 MR. KATZ: The only issue is I need 

21 
 to send documents to folks because they don't 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 all access the O: drive. So I need the 226 

2 
 PA-cleared versions of documents. So keep 

3 
 that in mind, but --

4 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And I also want 

5 
 to make sure that -- because Fernald -- let's 

6 
 be honest. There are a lot of papers out 

7 
 there. And this has been a long process to 

8 
 get to where we are at now. And I just wanted 

9 
 to make sure I didn't overwhelm especially 

10 
 some of the new Board Members with -- they 

11 
 have already had access to previous ones. I 

12 want to focus on why we're at where we're at. 

13 MR. KATZ: Right. Good. 

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. 

15 
 MR. KATZ: So it sounds like we're 

16 


17 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: It sounds like 

18 
 we can adjourn, without any other questions. 

19 There are no more questions out there. 

20 
 MR. KATZ: So thank you, everybody. 

21 This was very productive. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the Fernald Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 
 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. 227
 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Have a good rest of your 

3 
 day. 

4 
 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

5 
 was concluded at 1:41 p.m.) 

6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com