1 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

WORK GROUP ON FERNALD

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

SEPTEMBER 3, 2014

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened in the 

Toronto Room, Cincinnati Airport Marriott, 

2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, Kentucky, at 9:00 

a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, Bradley P. 

Clawson, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Chairman

MARK GRIFFON, Member*

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member*

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member*

ALSO PRESENT:

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 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

MATT ARNO, ORAU Team*

BOB BARTON, SC&A

HANS BEHLING, SC&A*

HARRY CHMELYNSKI, SC&A*

LOU DOLL

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

KARIN JESSEN, ORAU Team*

KAREN KENT, ORAU Team*

TOM LABONE, ORAU Team*

JOYCE LIPSZTEIN, SC&A*

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

MARK ROLFES, DCAS

JOHN STIVER, SC&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
3 

T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

PAGE

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

Uranium bioassay data for Fernald 

subcontractors during the

transitional period in '84-'85 ............ 5

Overview of new post-SEC thorium

methodology and in vivo coworker model ... 59

Fernald Site Profile Issues Matrix,

Revision 2 .............................. 123

Continued issues resolution for SC&A

site profile review findings ............ 173

Work Group plans for next meeting ....... 295

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
4 

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

2 (9:01 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning, everyone. 

4 This is Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

5 Health, Fernald Work Group. We're just 

6 getting ready to get started here. We are 

7 ready to get started here.

8 So we're going to start with roll 

9 call as usual, beginning with the Board 

10 Members. A lot of our Board Members I think are 

11 going to be on the phone.

12 We're speaking about a specific 

13 site so please speak to conflict of interest as 

14 well, everybody, as you register your 

15 attendance. Let's begin in the room with Board 

16 Members in the room.

17 (Roll call)

18 MR. KATZ: Okay, that's it. Then 

19 before I turn it over, let me just note the 

20 agenda for the meeting, some materials for the 

21 meeting, should be posted on the NIOSH website 

22 today's date under the Board section, scheduled 

23 meetings. And, Brad, it's your meeting.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Thank you very 

2 much. Like to welcome everybody today. It's 

3 been a long time since this Group's gotten 

4 together. I appreciate you taking the time to 

5 gather with us today.

6 With that, I'll turn it over to John 

7 Stiver and we'll start out, or did we want NIOSH 

8 or, got a couple papers.

9 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

10 I know NIOSH was tasked to look into the uranium 

11 bioassay data for subcontractors during the 

12 transitional period in '84-'85 and they 

13 produced a paper so it might be good maybe if 

14 Stu or Mark could kind of give some highlights 

15 on kind of that story.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is Stu 

17 and I'll give this a shot and then, Mark, you 

18 can correct me when I say something wrong or 

19 supplement what I say when I leave something 

20 out.

21 A couple or three Board meetings 

22 ago, the Work Group recommended the addition of 

23 a Class for subcontractor employees up through 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
6 

1 1983 based on the inability to reconstruct 

2 internal uranium exposures to that group of 

3 people because there was a general lack of 

4 bioassay data available for subcontractors for 

5 almost all those years.

6 I mean there were some isolated 

7 spots where there was some bioassay data, at 

8 least one instance of a subcontractor activity 

9 where we had a pretty good description of what 

10 they were doing and they were monitored. These 

11 people were monitored.

12 An assessment of intakes from that 

13 activity indicated that had those workers not 

14 been monitored the coworker model that was 

15 available, which was based almost entirely on 

16 prime contractor employees, would not have 

17 bounded their exposure.

18 And there was not a lot of 

19 confidence that NLO was rigorously identifying 

20 subcontractors who would be working in 

21 radiological work and, therefore, there may 

22 have been other instances of subcontractors 

23 doing radiological work who were not monitored 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
7 

1 who were exposed similarly to that group of 

2 contractors.

3 And so the decision was made that we 

4 didn't think we had, or the Work Group concluded 

5 that there wasn't sufficient bioassay data set 

6 for subcontractors, through 1983 at least, in 

7 order to do dose reconstruction.

8 Now, there is a data set or there are 

9 data from subcontractors, bioassay data from 

10 subcontractors from '84 and '85 that are 

11 relatively numerous.

12 We have tables in our latest 

13 document that shows how many samples and how 

14 many people were monitored in '84 and '85, and 

15 so based just on the number of samples 

16 available, the original decision was that the 

17 Class would be through 1983.

18 So then as some additional 

19 questions were raised in a letter to the Work 

20 Group about, you know, some concern that 

21 contractors still weren't being appropriately 

22 monitored in '84 and '85 and that, you know, 

23 throughout NLO's contract or, you know, prime 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
8 

1 contract, contractors should be added, should, 

2 in fact, be added to the Class for '84 and '85 

3 because NLO's contract ran I think through 

4 November of '85 if I'm not mistaken. I think 

5 Westinghouse started in December of '85.

6 So what we've done in the meantime 

7 is, you know, and so, anyway, part of the 

8 additional analysis that followed on that 

9 letter was to point out that in the years '84 

10 and '85 almost all the bioassay samples came 

11 from two companies, Rust Engineering and Legge 

12 Construction, and that there were quite a lot 

13 of other companies that were subcontracted, 

14 that had subcontracts during that time. We 

15 knew that from other records, that there were 

16 quite a lot of other companies.

17 And so the question was what about 

18 these other companies? Could it be that just 

19 Legge, you know, happened to be caught by 

20 happenstance and that Rust was, you know, 

21 included sort of by happenstance or because 

22 they were more, you know, regularly at the site?

23 And so maybe there were other 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
9 

1 subcontract activities that should have been 

2 monitored that weren't and were heavily exposed 

3 as well.

4 And so our task was to go try to find 

5 out what we could about some of these other 

6 contracts and what they were doing and whether 

7 it sounded like it was a radiological 

8 construction work or non-radiological because 

9 there was some clean construction going on by 

10 that time at Fernald and so we tried that.

11 We've made data captures to Legacy 

12 Management and it appears that the contracts 

13 were not retained so we've not been able to find 

14 the actual contracts for most of those 

15 companies and scopes of, statements of work, 

16 scopes of work on contract.

17 So we couldn't pursue that. You 

18 know, so that avenue really didn't pay off, that 

19 we could find a scope of work that said such and 

20 such company is building the new water 

21 treatment plant or whatever they were building. 

22 So that avenue of pursuit didn't prove 

23 fruitful.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
10 

1 But we did additional analysis, 

2 part of which had been at least partially done 

3 earlier, of the bioassay data that is available 

4 for subcontractors for essentially the bridge 

5 period, you know, for '83 which is the last year 

6 in the current Class, '84-'85 which are the 

7 transition years and then '86 and '87.

8 And we presented that here in our 

9 report. There are tables, Tables 3 through 7 

10 of our report called "Feed Materials Production 

11 Center Subcontractor Bioassay Results, 1983 to 

12 '87, and Search Results for Scopes of Work, '84 

13 to '85." This is dated August 21st of this 

14 year.

15 We present the data, the bioassay 

16 data in Tables 3 through 7 and from that you see 

17 that in the years following Westinghouse's 

18 takeover of the contract in '86 and '87 we can 

19 still see that the majority of the samples came 

20 from Rust Engineering or come from unknown, an 

21 unknown employer, meaning that this appears to 

22 be a subcontractor individual but there was not 

23 a company name written on the card. 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
11 

1 these data were all collected from bioassay 

2 sample cards, sample request and then result 

3 cards.

4 And so it kind of, to our mind, shows 

5 a pattern that is similar to '84 and '85, that 

6 you have roughly the same number of people 

7 monitored, not exactly but the total number of 

8 people monitored in these tables and it goes in 

9 '84 it was 88, in '85 it was 70, in '86 it was 

10 83, in '87 it was 89. So you have similar 

11 numbers of people monitored.

12 You have, I guess, similar numbers 

13 of companies, not the same company year after 

14 year except, of course, for Rust Engineering 

15 which is there all through.

16 And so it just appears to us that 

17 there doesn't seem to be a particular 

18 difference. When Westinghouse took over the 

19 contract, there doesn't seem to be any 

20 particular, you know, any particular 

21 difference in the way contractors were 

22 monitored than, say, they were in '84 and '85.

23 And that's about the extent 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
12 

1 evidence we could find. Now, Mark, I don't 

2 know if you feel like there's more I could say 

3 about this or not.

4 MR. ROLFES: No, I don't have 

5 anything to add. That was very good.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So that's 

7 about the extent of the evidence we could find 

8 which indicate that this '84 and '85 period 

9 seemed to have a period, for whatever reason, 

10 contractors that seemed to have been identified 

11 and monitored, you know, by bioassay.

12 You know, to conclude, you know, the 

13 question then really becomes is that 

14 sufficient, to feel like, well, yes, it looks 

15 like they were monitoring people 

16 appropriately?

17 And alternatively we haven't found 

18 any evidence of a company or of work that was 

19 being monitored that would have been more 

20 highly exposed than, say, Rust Engineering or 

21 these companies that were monitored that would 

22 have been more highly exposed than these 

23 because if you have contractors who weren'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
13 

1 monitored, I mean, the coworker model's only 

2 going to apply to people who were monitored and 

3 so you have to have a company that was doing 

4 radiological work that would be more heavily 

5 exposed than the monitored workers in order for 

6 this coworker approach not to bound their 

7 exposures.

8 So from our standpoint, you know, we 

9 just don't see the evidence that this data set, 

10 which is large enough in '84 and '85, that this 

11 data set isn't sufficient for bounding the dose 

12 to unmonitored subcontractors during that 

13 period.

14 So, you know, that's the extent. 

15 It's not as definitive as we had hoped. We had 

16 hoped to find statements of work that said that 

17 this company was building a new building 

18 someplace but we were not able to find that.

19 So it's not as definitive as we had 

20 hoped to find but it appears to us that there 

21 is no particular evidence to believe that it is 

22 not a sufficient data set to bound those doses.

23 MR. STIVER: Okay, thank you. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
14 

1 Thank you, Stu. This is John Stiver. You 

2 know, I think our main concern from the last 

3 meeting really, and Stu has articulated it 

4 pretty well, is that, you know, we had 

5 discovered there were probably about 50 

6 different subcontractors during this period 

7 yet only a handful, I think 12 of them, 

8 predominantly Rust and Legge, were represented 

9 in the bioassay data.

10 And so, you know, looking at these, 

11 at a coworker model for subcontractors is a 

12 little bit different animal than looking for, 

13 say, a coworker model for a set of workers in 

14 a building in the plant doing the same type of 

15 activity over and over again when you have kind 

16 of a homogeneous population.

17 With the subs you've got almost like 

18 a separate population. Every time they come in 

19 to do a different job, does that really have any 

20 relation to another contractor that comes in 

21 and does some other type of job?

22 And so in our mind it was critical 

23 that you have at least a good weight of evidence 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
15 

1 argument, if not out and out proof, that, you 

2 know, indeed, the potentially exposed groups of 

3 companies, contracting companies were, indeed, 

4 monitored.

5 And so I guess that was really the 

6 genesis of this data capture which, you know, 

7 NIOSH has performed. It would have been nice 

8 to find some contract information that 

9 specified who did what and when.

10 You know, looking at the patterns in 

11 the data, I got to say I kind of agree with Stu. 

12 You've got about the same number of personnel 

13 being monitored.

14 In '86 and '87 when Westinghouse, 

15 WINCO came in and took over, you don't see a big 

16 change in the pattern, the distribution of 

17 samples among the individuals. You still see, 

18 with maybe the exception of some of these 

19 unknowns, Rust is still predominantly the 

20 leader.

21 There are quite a bit more samples 

22 in '87. Now, I don't know if they increased the 

23 sampling frequency for whatever reason but 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
16 

1 number of individuals stays the same.

2 So my takeaway from this is that I'm 

3 not really seeing a smoking gun here. You 

4 know, I think the criteria for rejecting this 

5 data, given the numbers are fairly good and the 

6 representation appears to be pretty good, would 

7 have to be some kind of a statement backed up 

8 by some strong facts that, you know, here's a 

9 group that did come in and do some dirty work 

10 that weren't monitored.

11 And I know Bob's went through the 

12 claimant file and they haven't found anything 

13 that would suggest that and so I know you guys 

14 are in kind of a tough position trying to prove 

15 a negative. You know, did they or didn't they? 

16 You know, we don't really know.

17 But without any kind of strong 

18 evidence to indicate that highly exposed groups 

19 were not monitored, I don't see that this 

20 remains to be an SEC issue. That's SC&A's 

21 position on it. Certainly left it open for 

22 debate and I'm sure that the others have 

23 different opinions on 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
17 

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, you know, 

2 it looks fairly good and I'm looking over what 

3 we've got into.

4 But one of the things I'd like to do 

5 is go on the record of, you know, find that Lou 

6 Doll is in the room with us. He just joined us 

7 a few minutes ago. I'd like to welcome him to 

8 it.

9 And I don't see a real big increase 

10 but, you know, this is kind of a transition 

11 period and I've never seen a transition period 

12 where we do kind of ramp up but it's looking like 

13 that we've got enough results in here to be able 

14 to perform what we did. Have you guys been able 

15 to look at this paper very close or --

16 MR. STIVER: It's basically like 

17 Stu said. I mean, these are the results, the 

18 numerical results.

19 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right.

20 MR. STIVER: The conclusions, I 

21 think, are pretty much in line right here on 

22 Page 9 as to what they discovered.

23 I think the most important thing 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
18 

1 they didn't find the information on contracts 

2 and what was done and by who and when and that 

3 was really the thing that we'd like to have had, 

4 you know. Unfortunately that's not always the 

5 case.

6 I think something else we need to 

7 keep in mind is the, you know, the time frame, 

8 and the kind of concerns over health and safety 

9 that were evolving during the '80s would kind 

10 of, at least in my mind, lead me to think that 

11 you would not have a group come in that would, 

12 you know, potentially be highly exposed and 

13 then just not monitor them.

14 Now, back in the '50s I could see 

15 something like that happening,'50s and '60s. 

16 But in the '80s and, you know, transitioning 

17 into the '90s with the RadCon Manual and 835 

18 coming on board, it would be kind of hard for 

19 me to accept, that that kind of really unlikely 

20 event could have taken place without any kind 

21 of evidence to support it.

22 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. What 

23 about the Plant 9 dust collector release? 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
19 

1 were talking about that subcontractor's --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there was a 

3 question. The question was raised why did 

4 subcontracting sampling all of a sudden go up 

5 in late '83, right? Isn't that what we saw?

6 End of '83 all of a sudden we start 

7 seeing from our capture card, urine card, we 

8 started seeing a lot more subcontractor data 

9 than we had seen before that time.

10 And the question was raised several 

11 meetings ago why did that happen? And I 

12 speculated it might have been the Plant 9 dust 

13 collector release and I had misremembered the 

14 date. I was off by, that didn't occur until the 

15 later part of 1984, so clearly that wasn't the 

16 reason why.

17 Couple things, you know, come to 

18 mind. First of all, it could be that there were 

19 more contractors on site about that time 

20 because this was during the period of the Reagan 

21 build-up when a lot of money was put into 

22 defense programs.

23 And Fernald for the first time 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
20 

1 probably 15 or 20 years actually got some 

2 capital money and was able to build and remodel 

3 some things, so there was an influx of money 

4 around that time.

5 Now, I don't know if that was the 

6 exact date but it was during Reagan's first term 

7 which would have been '81 to January of '85. It 

8 was during his first term that he pushed that 

9 expansion of nuclear production capability, 

10 project production capability.

11 And some of that money got in 

12 Fernald and so there was more work done then 

13 than had been done for a long time of a capital 

14 nature, you know, building things.

15 And then I could mention somewhat 

16 facetiously because I have no memory of 

17 participating in this, but the fall of 1983 was 

18 when I went to work in Radiation Safety 

19 Department.

20 Now, I have no memory of ever 

21 saying, hey, we should be monitoring these 

22 contractors. I'm not saying that. I would 

23 think that if I had been asked I would say, 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
21 

1 we should be monitoring these contractors but 

2 I don't remember that ever happening.

3 And I was, like, the second health 

4 physicist at the time and the first was really 

5 junior. The first was right out of school. 

6 She'd only been there about a year or so, so in 

7 terms of people with actual health physics 

8 training background.

9 So I don't know if, you know, like 

10 I said, I have no recollection of ever doing 

11 anything like that. It just, I thought the 

12 timing was kind of odd when I saw the date.

13 I think it's the build-up. I think 

14 it was the fact that there was more contract 

15 work and since it happened in the fall, which 

16 would be the beginning of a fiscal year, it 

17 seemed to me that that's probably what the 

18 likely event was. That's probably when some 

19 capital money became available and more 

20 subcontractor work actually started happening.

21 MR. BARTON: Well, I think there's 

22 two, really two facets that you laid out pretty 

23 nicely.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
22 

1 One was, really the more important 

2 one in my mind, was to try to figure out what 

3 subcontractors were actually on the site and 

4 what they were doing and is there a reason that 

5 they might not be showing up in this data set?

6 We uncovered a list of, you know, 

7 50-something subcontractors who were under 

8 contract with NLO at the time. We really don't 

9 know what they were doing and if there's a 

10 reason they weren't monitored.

11 There's also the possibility that 

12 they were actually subcontractors to Rust, a 

13 sub-subcontractor if you will, and so it was 

14 really just a naming convention, the reason why 

15 we see such a large proportion of these samples 

16 going to Rust.

17 And during the last teleconference 

18 back in April, we pretty much discussed, you 

19 know, we just really have to do our due 

20 diligence on that first pass to try to figure 

21 out what information is out there.

22 And you guys want to data capture 

23 and it's just, you know, we're sort of 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
23 

1 end of that road where we can't really say 

2 either way what subcontractors were at the site 

3 and what they were doing and if there's a reason 

4 why the name of the subcontractors doesn't 

5 appear. So that's the first facet and I think 

6 that's a very powerful piece of evidence.

7 The second facet is this comparison 

8 of the '84-'85 years to '86 and '87, and I'm 

9 going to have to muddy the waters a little bit 

10 here.

11 I'm looking at Table 6. We 

12 actually went through that data set and what 

13 we're quoting here is 370 total samples. When 

14 you do examine the data, 357 of those 370 

15 samples were only for the first six months of 

16 1986.

17 An additional 13 samples were 

18 compiled essentially from the second reference 

19 from 1986, so that covers the last six months 

20 of the year. So logically we can make the jump 

21 that in 1986 your total number of results is 

22 probably going to be somewhere around double.

23 Now, what implication does 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
24 

1 really have, because the effect is likely not 

2 going to be as profound for the number of 

3 individuals which, in my opinion, is sort of the 

4 more important column there.

5 If you're pretty much looking at the 

6 same size population among all these years and 

7 if we can accept that when Westinghouse took 

8 over that they had a pretty good handle on 

9 things, then essentially your pool of monitored 

10 workers is fairly consistent.

11 Now, it's tough to say because 

12 without compiling that actual data in the last 

13 six months of 1986, you really can't tell what 

14 kind of effect it would have.

15 Like I said, it's likely the total 

16 number for trial would be somewhere around 

17 double what's quoted there. The number of 

18 individuals would likely increase but 

19 obviously that's not going to double. You're 

20 not going to have a completely different 

21 workforce in the last six months. Maybe you 

22 add another subcontractor name or two to this.

23 But I think what John Stiver said 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
25 

1 that's really important here is that we don't 

2 have any indication or real evidence that there 

3 was a group out there that was doing something 

4 decidedly different from these other monitored 

5 subcontractors, that we're really missing it to 

6 where we can't come up with a bounding approach, 

7 a bounding coworker model specifically for 

8 subcontractors in these years that is going to 

9 totally miss the boat.

10 I mean I think to make a 

11 determination, and this is just my opinion, to 

12 make a determination that a coworker model 

13 fails you have to have that indication that 

14 there was groups out there that were doing 

15 something completely different and they were 

16 completely ignored and that's why we don't see 

17 the name of that specific contractor in these 

18 tables.

19 And as John mentioned, we went in 

20 and examined some subcontractor claimant files 

21 to see if we could see some CATI reports that, 

22 you know, talked about incidents or doing 

23 specific work such as, you know, working 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
26 

1 HVAC systems or pulling out decontaminated 

2 equipment and we just really came up empty.

3 And you combine that with the fact 

4 that we feel like information, the contracts 

5 simply aren't out there. We don't have 

6 radiation work permits that would define what 

7 it is the subcontractor out there, that we're 

8 totally missing with this.

9 Really it becomes a judgment call as 

10 to whether this transitional period when you 

11 can see the number of data points picking up 

12 and, like I said, I'm guessing it's going to 

13 probably double in 1986 and 1987, not that far 

14 off from that number.

15 Oh, also in 1987 I noticed that 

16 there was no or there was only one bioassay 

17 sample for the months of November and December 

18 combined and this is really just the case that 

19 those months weren't included in the underlying 

20 reference.

21 And I did look and I honestly 

22 couldn't find bioassay cards for those two 

23 months. So, I mean, you could probably expect 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
27 

1 the number in 1987 to increase slightly as well.

2 But, again, what I'm looking at is 

3 this number of individuals column. I mean, I 

4 think if we're going to have about the same 

5 number of workers who were monitored, I think 

6 that's a good indication that they at least had 

7 a handle on which radiological subcontractors 

8 they should be looking at.

9 And, again, this sort of operates 

10 under the assumption that in 1986 to 1987 when 

11 Westinghouse was there that they were 

12 monitoring the right group of workers.

13 Like I said, it gets a little muddy 

14 just because in Table 6 we're essentially only 

15 looking at the first six months so we really 

16 don't know necessarily what effect that would 

17 have.

18 But I think what we do know is that 

19 they were taking more bioassay samples but were 

20 they actually taking them from more people?

21 I think the effect of compiling that 

22 data would be significantly less than the total 

23 number of samples but we really don't 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
28 

1 exact effect it would have on this comparison, 

2 which is really the second facet.

3 But in the end, like John said, we 

4 don't have a smoking gun. We don't even really 

5 have smoke to indicate a fire because we 

6 couldn't find any sort of, as John Mauro put it, 

7 the rock to stand on to say, you know, we 

8 probably have a real problem here.

9 And if we're going to make a 

10 comparison to I guess what we call the gold 

11 standard of the Westinghouse years, again, it 

12 looks like the actual individual population is 

13 very similar and the actual names of the 

14 subcontractors are very similar in what was 

15 compiled here and they're really almost 

16 entirely for Rust Engineering.

17 And like I said before, one reason 

18 could very well be that these other names that 

19 we had in that populated list of 50 were 

20 actually subcontractors to Rust and so when 

21 they entered the bioassay program they just 

22 marked them down as Rust.

23 Now, one question I did have is 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
29 

1 Table 7 we talk about the unknown group and I 

2 assume that's because they just didn't have a 

3 company name written on the bioassay card.

4 It says here, there's a footnote, 

5 and that the names were compared to the '83 to 

6 '86 results but no company could be identified.

7 So I guess I'm wondering was there, 

8 there was obviously a subcontractor identified 

9 in the '83-'86 that you were able to match the 

10 name to or, I mean, I guess I don't know how you 

11 determined those were subcontractors if they 

12 weren't marked as such in '87 and then I'm just 

13 not sure if they were marked as subcontractors 

14 in the prior years and that's how we were able 

15 to determine if those unknown worker categories 

16 were, in fact, subcontractors.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't recall. I 

18 wonder if someone on the phone can help out with 

19 the meaning of that footnote, the double 

20 asterisk footnote.

21 MR. ROLFES: Gene Potter had gone 

22 through -- This is Mark. Gene Potter had gone 

23 through the records. I don't know if he's 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
30 

1 the phone today. We might be able to send him 

2 an email and see if he can get us a response 

3 possibly.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: There were, at 

5 least during some period of time, there were a 

6 set of badge numbers that were reserved for 

7 subcontractors.

8 And I don't know if this is part of 

9 that time period or not but there was a set of 

10 badge number, you know, sequence of badge 

11 numbers, you know, thousand numbers or so, that 

12 were only issued to subcontractors. And so it 

13 may have been from that but I don't know if 

14 that's how this was done or not.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Help me 

16 understand. You were saying that this '86, and 

17 this is Brad, urine results is only for the 

18 first six months?

19 MR. BARTON: Plus 13 samples in the 

20 second group of six months. Just the 

21 compilation appears to have stopped at some 

22 point.

23 I'm not sure if the original, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
31 

1 because this is actually, these are the same 

2 numbers that were quoted back in April when we 

3 were talking about this and I'm not sure.

4 When they were compiled for that 

5 meeting, the intent wasn't really to make this 

6 comparison. I don't believe we had gotten that 

7 far.

8 Now, it's something we discussed at 

9 the April meeting. It just, I don't think it 

10 ever got expanded to fully pull in the bioassay 

11 samples from essentially the second reference.

12 1986 is split into two different 

13 references and I can provide those numbers if 

14 people are interested. The first reference 

15 was vetted completely and the second reference 

16 wasn't, so.

17 MR. STIVER: The second one 

18 contained 13 entries?

19 MR. BARTON: Well, the file itself 

20 was 89,000 pages long and the entries that were 

21 pulled were kind of in the first 100 or so and 

22 then the compilation just sort of stopped. So 

23 the data is there if we want to go fill out 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
32 

1 table.

2 Now, in 1987 I was not able to find 

3 any bioassay points for November and December 

4 of that year so those numbers might increase a 

5 bit as well for those two months.

6 It was noted in this paper and is 

7 evident when you look at the data that it's true 

8 when you get to the colder months there's 

9 generally less monitoring going on, probably 

10 because there's less construction projects 

11 going on.

12 So there might not be a drastic 

13 increase from just adding November and December 

14 in 1987 but certainly there'll be a marked 

15 increase for 1986 in these totals.

16 As I said, I feel what's more 

17 important is the actual total number of 

18 individuals that were monitored, comparison 

19 between those and ---

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 MR. STIVER: Yes. That's what I'm 

22 looking at. I mean for '84, '85, '86 and '87 

23 you've got pretty consistent numbers 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
33 

1 individuals and if there was something 

2 problematic that we're missing in Table 6 for 

3 the second half of the year, like more 

4 individuals being monitored, you'd expect that 

5 to carry through to the following year --

6 MR. BARTON: Right.

7 MR. STIVER: -- I mean, depending 

8 on how steady the workload was at that time, 

9 but.

10 MR. BARTON: I agree. And another 

11 very important facet of this was, one of our 

12 main concerns was when we looked at the records 

13 that we do have for those two years they were 

14 for pretty much two subcontractors.

15 Well, why is that? Let's look in 

16 subsequent years and see if, well, all of a 

17 sudden maybe we see that there are 30 different 

18 subcontractors that are involved in the 

19 bioassay monitoring program, and that's just 

20 really not the case. When you look at these 

21 totals, '86 and '87 was Rust Engineering and 

22 then this unknown column.

23 MR. STIVER: The patterns 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
34 

1 don't change abruptly. I mean, if there was a 

2 problem you expect a lot of big players entered 

3 in there in a different distribution among 

4 them.

5 MR. BARTON: Only thing it does 

6 change is going to be the total number of

7 bioassay results but what we can't really say 

8 is that the total number of monitored workers 

9 is going to be markedly changed.

10 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, well, a 

11 lot of this work that was done for this is in 

12 response to Mr. Doll's letter that he sent to 

13 us and I'd like to give you an opportunity if 

14 you'd like to be able to ask any of the 

15 questions. Have you been able to see this 

16 paper that we're looking at?

17 MR. DOLL: Somewhat, I just got it.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

19 MR. DOLL: I'm Lou Doll. I wrote a 

20 letter. Concerns that I had with the decision 

21 that the subcontractors were only included 

22 under National Lead of Ohio from 1951 to 1983.

23 Having worked both under National 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
35 

1 Lead of Ohio and Westinghouse, Fluor after 

2 that, the differences in how tests and HIS-20 

3 and urinalysis and safety and the oversight was 

4 completely different between National Lead of 

5 Ohio and Westinghouse.

6 It raised concerns with me when I 

7 read the report that the decision was made on, 

8 that the reason they had started doing more 

9 urinalysis in 1982 was because they had the bag 

10 house at Plant 9 blow up.

11 If that's the case, and that's what 

12 we were basing decisions on as far as ramping 

13 up how we test and give urinalysis for the 

14 workers, then the basis for that would have been 

15 pushed back two years.

16 So that kind of threw a red flag at 

17 me right away. Like I say, after having worked 

18 for National Lead of Ohio, they wouldn't do 

19 surveys.

20 Subcontractors, and it's in your 

21 report, they wouldn't even, I mean, they called 

22 us intermittent workers. They're not going to 

23 be here long enough. Don't worry about them. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
36 

1 We don't have to monitor them. We don't have 

2 to test, and that was the attitude that they 

3 had.

4 So lawsuit came out on that and part 

5 of this was from Fluor when they came in. 

6 Accusations against National Lead of Ohio 

7 include putting production first, making 

8 safety an afterthought, fabricating records on 

9 uranium dust emissions, failing to properly 

10 record exposure figures for workers when, in 

11 fact, they had been exposed, failing to retest 

12 workers whose exposure levels exceeded 

13 standards, maintaining exposure records for 

14 150 but 60 of the 150 workers failing to tell 

15 one worker he had fibrosis of the lungs.

16 They lost that lawsuit. They were 

17 found guilty and they had to set up monitoring 

18 programs and that.

19 And I know that that doesn't give a 

20 basis for the records that you have to look at 

21 to make a decision on, but it kind of gives a 

22 concern for what are these records really as far 

23 as like what you're getting. You can only 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
37 

1 make decisions on the records that you can find 

2 and what they say.

3 However, there's been a lot of 

4 concerns over the years and a lot of it came out 

5 in this lawsuit, that National Lead of Ohio did 

6 not keep good records and the records they did 

7 keep, were they totally correct? You know, but 

8 like I say, that's not you guys' problem. You 

9 guys got to deal with what you got to deal with.

10 One other concern that I had and the 

11 gentleman was before you a few, well, I guess 

12 it was over a year ago now but he had dose 

13 reconstruction done on this thing and he was 

14 there the '82, '83, '84, '85, all the way up to 

15 2005.

16 And we got his report back. It told 

17 him that the majority of his radiation exposure 

18 was received during employment as a 

19 construction engineer according to records 

20 received from Department of Labor and 

21 information provided in the interview process.

22 You know, he brought that to my 

23 attention. He brought it to this, 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
38 

1 group's attention that how could I have gotten 

2 more -- and he became a [identifying 

3 information redacted] under Fluor. He was a 

4 worker under National Lead and Westinghouse.

5 And when he got this thing back, it 

6 just, and I can see why it didn't make sense to 

7 him. I mean, if you're out in the field working 

8 in all those different things, you got no 

9 coverage, you're getting exposures, you don't 

10 know what's going on, and we had different 

11 partners when we first went down. We didn't 

12 even have clearances yet so we didn't know 

13 anything.

14 We worked in buildings down there 

15 without respiratory protection, without 

16 anything going on but later on, Pilot Plant 

17 being one of them, you couldn't even go in the 

18 building without a respirator and full 

19 dress-out yet we did all the demolition and 

20 everything in those buildings with no 

21 protection.

22 I don't know what the exposure 

23 records say, but I know what the circumstances 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
39 

1 were and that's what gives me concern.

2 I think that the SEC petition should 

3 go through '85, the total time at National Lead. 

4 I think it's a nice, clean break.

5 I do agree that when Westinghouse 

6 came, they did a much better job and changed a 

7 lot of the things that National Lab did and they 

8 were aboveboard and they never had a problem 

9 getting taken to court or anything else for any 

10 issues that they had.

11 So, I mean, I don't know if 

12 anybody's got any questions for me about any of 

13 this stuff.

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Lou, this is 

15 Brad. You were saying that you were classified 

16 as a intermittent worker --

17 MR. DOLL: Correct.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: -- under the 

19 construction work. Now, how many years were 

20 you actually on the site?

21 MR. DOLL: '83 to 2004 and there 

22 were a couple small breaks in-between. Now, 

23 the other fellow, [identifying information 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
40 

1 redacted], he was there straight from 

2 [identifying information redacted]. He had 23 

3 straight years I think. There were a lot of 

4 people there like that.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, and this 

6 is -- In the interviews I had heard a lot of 

7 people say, well, yes, I was a construction 

8 worker but the only thing that changed on me was 

9 the contractor I was working for. I'd been out 

10 there X amount of years straight through.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that's true 

12 and I think that's the real, I mean that's the 

13 reason I'm not, I mean Lou is exactly right. I 

14 worked for NOL, Westinghouse and Fluor also and 

15 he's exactly right.

16 And the view that construction 

17 workers are considered transient and so they're 

18 not going to bust any limit so you don't have 

19 to worry about, you know, exposure limit, so 

20 didn't have to worry about them, that was kind 

21 of what was happening.

22 And so the question now is but when 

23 they did start monitoring in '84 and '85 do 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
41 

1 now have enough data to reconstruct those 

2 exposures, which appears to me that we do and 

3 that's the only issue we're laying out.

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: But everything Lou 

6 said is right. I had one question. Do you 

7 remember when they finished demolition in Pilot 

8 Plant to put the new 64 in? Do you remember 

9 when that, because I sure don't. I know it was 

10 going on in the early '80s.

11 MR. DOLL: Let's see. Let's see 

12 here. Just a second here. Got to find the 

13 right one.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Because I mean 

15 that's kind of, to me, the classic example of 

16 a poorly controlled radiological work, you 

17 know, radiological construction work, that 

18 that was not a good place, that was not a good 

19 activity and I don't think it was controlled 

20 very well but I don't know when --

21 MR. DOLL: Okay, Pilot Plant 

22 Building 13. Originally hired for 60- to 

23 90-day job to do the demolition of the existing 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
42 

1 uranium enrichment process. That was the 

2 first job in --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: '82.

4 MR. DOLL: -- '83, late '82, early 

5 '83.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Into '83, okay. 

7 Okay, so that's already in the Class.

8 MR. DOLL: Well, it went through 

9 '85 because we had to go back in there when it 

10 was running when the coal traps didn't work.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. It was more, 

12 actually I was just thinking of the original 

13 demolition.

14 MR. DOLL: No, there was a second 

15 demolition.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Because?

17 MR. DOLL: On the wet side because 

18 we had to go in and tear out the existing stuff 

19 on the wet side to put the refrigeration skid 

20 in. So we had to do a complete demo in '85 to 

21 get that out to put the refrigeration because 

22 coal traps wouldn't work.

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, all 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
43 

1 MR. DOLL: What we originally put 

2 it in they had a problem with the off-gas and 

3 the off-gas is HF. So they put it through. 

4 They had some different functions, the piping 

5 and stuff, so we had to do some stuff.

6 Finally we got it running and then 

7 it couldn't handle the HF through the coal traps 

8 so we had then to shut it down. Went in, demoed 

9 the, and that was the bad side. You know what 

10 was on the wet side of the, that was the 

11 right-hand side of the building.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, looking 

13 south, it's all the piping and stuff.

14 MR. DOLL: Yes, there was all kinds 

15 of stuff left in there, including thorium and 

16 everything else, and we went in there and demoed 

17 that. There was still stuff in the lines 

18 because we ended up having a problem.

19 One of the things was in the lines 

20 that they told us was clean, was caustic. The 

21 reason we found out was because our boots 

22 started, you know, the leather on the boots 

23 started bubbling from 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
44 

1 So, I mean, out of six lines that we 

2 demoed that were in there, three of them had 

3 material, you know, liquid materials and stuff 

4 and we didn't know what it was. We weren't 

5 told. We were just told to get this stuff out 

6 and there was no protection at that time.

7 You know, they told us to take break 

8 over in this other, the little room next door. 

9 We found out that it was hotter or as hot as the 

10 other building were and that's where we were 

11 eating lunch at. You know, it was in kind of 

12 a maintenance shop. They have a saw in there. 

13 They would cut --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, what they call 

15 the Pilot Plant warehouse across the street?

16 MR. DOLL: Right next door.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, around the 

18 corner there or was it kind of --

19 (Simultaneous speaking)

20 MR. DOLL: It was right there on the 

21 left.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

23 MR. DOLL: And then Rust trailers 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
45 

1 were right beyond that.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Yes.

3 MR. DOLL: It was a small block 

4 building. It wasn't that big.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I think I'm 

6 thinking of something else.

7 MR. DOLL: It had a saw inside and 

8 stuff like that but they used it for 

9 maintenance. Well, we come to find out later 

10 that they would cut the material in there. 

11 That's what the saw was for.

12 Well, that's when -- Then they said, 

13 well, construction's a funny duck. They want 

14 you to take your break and your stuff in your 

15 area. They don't want you moseying off 

16 anywhere else for your break --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: That's right.

18 MR. DOLL: -- in the morning and 

19 stuff.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Don’t want to lose 

21 control, don't want you wandering around.

22 MR. DOLL: And when we would take 

23 break in the morning and that, they'd tell us 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
46 

1 to take our coffee and stuff with us and go over 

2 here, take a break in this building. So, I 

3 mean, you know, you're just thinking 

4 everything's cool.

5 We find out later, I mean, this is 

6 in later years like you say, when they 

7 completely boarded off 13 later on till they did 

8 the demolition on that in 2004 I think and 

9 nobody was allowed in and out of it without 

10 complete respiratory control yet we did 

11 demolition, everything else in there as a first 

12 job with no oversight.

13 I just, I know you guys are looking 

14 at what you got and I don't have a problem with 

15 that. I mean you guys got to make decisions 

16 based upon, but I do have concerns with what was 

17 there and the contractor and what I know we were 

18 put through and the way we were treated.

19 I mean, when you go back to the books 

20 for 3161, 3162, they did -- 3162 was the medical 

21 part of it, 3161 was who was what worker and what 

22 were they entitled to --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, who ordered 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
47 

1 ---

2 (Simultaneous speaking.)

3 MR. DOLL: Right. And when I went 

4 in there, the actual verbiage in 3161 was 

5 intermittent workers. That's what the 

6 government and the contractors considered 

7 construction, was intermittent workers because 

8 there was a basis for what you're allowed to get 

9 or whatever within this process and that was the 

10 tack that they took as far as, like, 

11 subcontractors were concerned.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: And under some 

13 circumstances --

14 MR. DOLL: Expendable was another 

15 one.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- if you're going 

17 to build a building -- You're going to always 

18 need to build buildings and so you would expect 

19 the people that build your building to kind of 

20 building your building and go away.

21 But in this instance the same 

22 workers, as you say, stayed with either one 

23 contract -- And once they got clearance, 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
48 

1 were gold. Whatever contractor was going to be 

2 working out there, they would hire the guy that 

3 was in there.

4 (Simultaneous speaking)

5 MR. DOLL: So, you know, but like I 

6 say, between that and, well, I read the thing 

7 with the dates and stuff but also --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, got that.

9 MR. DOLL: -- the one individual 

10 got back his thing here from Department of 

11 Labor. It said that he got more --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I know how that 

13 happened.

14 MR. DOLL: I mean it doesn't make 

15 common sense.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I know how that 

17 happened but it's embarrassing, so. It's a --

18 MR. DOLL: Well, you understand my 

19 concerns then about --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

21 MR. DOLL: Now, you know, I look at 

22 -- You say embarrassing. Well, what I'm 

23 looking at is these are people filing their 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
49 

1 claims and you're saying are getting the best 

2 treatment possible and this comes up. So that 

3 raises concern. Is this the only one or --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they used the 

5 job title they have for him which was his last 

6 job title and they put that in the essentially 

7 boilerplate section of the dose 

8 reconstruction.

9 And when you do stuff like that, if 

10 you're not really careful it really hurts the 

11 credibility of the product and that's what 

12 happened here. We know how that happened.

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, we've

14 discussed this many times, that when people, 

15 you go to the last job and last place that they 

16 worked.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. The last job 

18 title they had is likely the one that's in the 

19 database. That's likely the one in the 

20 database.

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, I'd like 

22 to open this up to any of the other Board Members 

23 on the phone if they have any questions 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
50 

1 they'd like to ask.

2 MR. KATZ: Paul and Mark.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: And Phil.

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Phil.

5 MR. KATZ: Phil, right. Everyone. 

6 Do we still have you on the line? Maybe you're 

7 on mute.

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Probably muted.

9 MR. KATZ: Do we have anyone on the 

10 line?

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Is anyone on the 

12 phone?

13 (Simultaneous speaking)

14 MR. KATZ: The phone shows that 

15 it's -- We have our connection so I know there 

16 are people on the line. We're not hearing 

17 anyone on the line.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Karin or Matt, can 

19 you say something?

20 MR. ARNO: I'm still here and 

21 everything.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: We thought we'd 

23 lost our phone connection.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
51 

1 MR. KATZ: So do we have Paul or 

2 Mark or Phil still on the line?

3 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Ted, can you 

4 hear me now?

5 MR. KATZ: Yes, we hear you now 

6 perfectly.

7 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay. Yes, I 

8 was on mute.

9 MR. KATZ: Oh, I'm sorry.

10 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I've got one 

11 question on this. Did they use a 

12 representative person from, say, some of the 

13 small contractors? They would take an escort 

14 or something and that person's bioassay was 

15 supposed to be representative of the people 

16 that he or she was escorting?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Phil, I don't have 

18 any recollection of that. I don't think that 

19 was done. I think if a work activity was 

20 determined to be monitored, then people there 

21 would be monitored. I don't think that was 

22 done, I don't remember that was done. Lou 

23 seems to be puzzled as well. He doesn'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
52 

1 MR. DOLL: The escort, if you're 

2 talking about when the porters would go out and 

3 work in the plant if they didn't have, in the 

4 early days when they didn't have clearances 

5 that would have been a guard.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, so there 

7 wouldn't be any way to associate with that Work 

8 Group so they wouldn't have done that I don't 

9 think.

10 MR. ROLFES: This is Mark Rolfes 

11 and I did hear back from Gene about Bob Barton's 

12 earlier question.

13 And Gene responded back that the 

14 unknowns were Type 50 bioassay samples with no 

15 annual routine samples which was the typical 

16 pattern that we saw for subcontractors. Some 

17 might have also had "sub" written on the card 

18 without a company name.

19 He said another feature was that 

20 they didn't have a normal employee number like 

21 the NLO employee numbers did. They might have 

22 had a different two-number prefix but --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, sometimes 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
53 

1 they used a two-number prefix and a dash. That

2 was subcontractor. For some period of time 

3 there was a, this may be more back with NLO, that 

4 there was a period, there was a range of badge 

5 numbers that were only assigned to 

6 subcontractors.

7 MR. DOLL: The badges were set up 

8 the first two numbers, an 01 or an 02 or an 03, 

9 was the craft. And then the second number, 

10 which would have then started like 001, 002, 003 

11 or 210, that was the number of the individual 

12 as they came into the plant.

13 So you could almost get a straight 

14 line on down as to who got there at what time. 

15 You don't have -- I got some dates at my office. 

16 But that's how the badge numbers worked as far 

17 as Rust Engineering was concerned. First 

18 number was the craft. Second number was the 

19 individual's number.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, thank you.

21 MR. ROLFES: And then he also added 

22 that the meaning of the double asterisk in the 

23 footnote from Table 7 was that it was meant 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
54 

1 mean that Gene had looked for the individual 

2 names in the 1983 to 1986 time period to see if 

3 there were company names in the other years but 

4 he couldn't find them in other years.

5 MR. BARTON: That makes a lot more 

6 sense.

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, I'd like 

8 to tell NIOSH we appreciate what they've 

9 brought to us on this because this, you know, 

10 based on the information we have this is what 

11 we have to be able to go with that, you know, 

12 they've done due diligence that we have asked 

13 them to be able to do.

14 And, in my eyes, we don't see 

15 anything that a coworker wouldn't be able to --

16 Now, this is only to be used if there's no 

17 monitoring data, correct?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: It's uranium. 

19 It's interim uranium only and it is only if 

20 there's no monitoring data.

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Well, 

22 without, you know, like you guys said, without 

23 a smoking gun there's not much that we can 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
55 

1 with this.

2 But we have evaluated and, yes, it's 

3 a little cool in here, done due diligence on 

4 this so if there's any more that you had a 

5 question on or that we want to clarify on this, 

6 this one basically can be closed.

7 MR. STIVER: I have nothing to add 

8 to it.

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. What 

10 have we got next on the agenda there that we want 

11 to go to that? I know that I read a fairly 

12 lengthy paper on thorium.

13 MR. STIVER: Yes. Next on the 

14 agenda, back in, I believe it was late June, 

15 NIOSH produced a White Paper on thorium 

16 internal dose assessment methodology in the 

17 post-SEC period and then kind of a companion 

18 document to that was released a couple of weeks 

19 ago which was the in vivo coworker model. It's 

20 kind of a subset of this overall methodology.

21 And we've been tasked to do a 

22 thorough, complete review of it which is 

23 getting underway. Anticipate we should 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
56 

1 it completed probably mid to late October.

2 So at this point, if you guys would 

3 like to kind of talk about it, maybe give us the 

4 10,000-foot overview. NIOSH could do that.

5 I know Bob has a few questions and 

6 so do I. We could maybe use that as a way to 

7 sort of focus our review going forward.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, this is Stu 

9 Hinnefeld again. I will give this a shot. I 

10 believe the Work Group and then the Board have, 

11 the Work Group has recommended and the Board has 

12 recommended that SEC Class be added through '78 

13 at Fernald for thorium exposure, internal 

14 thorium exposure.

15 The method for monitoring --

16 Thanks, Lou. The method for monitoring was 

17 proposed to be in vivo monitoring. Well, 

18 actually the early, from '54 through '67 the 

19 method was daily weighted average air sampling 

20 was the proposed method originally and from '68 

21 and later it was in vivo monitoring until we get 

22 into, like, '95.

23 And so the Board and the Work Group 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
57 

1 both concluded that the daily weighted average 

2 data was insufficient for thorium and that you 

3 couldn't reliably interpret in vivo monitoring 

4 results in terms of milligrams, in units of 

5 milligrams of thorium.

6 And so Class has been added up 

7 through '78 and so we have evaluated what 

8 techniques are available after 1978 for 

9 assessing thorium internal exposure and so 

10 that's what this paper lays out.

11 This paper also lays out a bit of 

12 thorium history at Fernald and how the thorium 

13 was handled so let's start with that part. So 

14 we're not going to talk about anything earlier 

15 than '78 since that's all been decided already.

16 And then one of the aspects, you 

17 know, while Fernald did, in fact, process and 

18 produce thorium products for a portion of its 

19 history, that all stopped in about 1979. I 

20 think their last thorium processing occurred in 

21 1979.

22 And then from '80 and forward, it 

23 was largely storage and then disposition, 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
58 

1 other words getting rid of the stuff.

2 Now, part of storage, though, was to 

3 improve the storage because storage containers 

4 were not durable enough because some of the 

5 materials were aggressive toward storage 

6 containers, shall we say, and corroded the 

7 containers.

8 And so periodically some sets of 

9 material would have to be redrummed so there 

10 were periodic redrumming operations from '80 

11 until disposition.

12 So that's really the opportunity 

13 for thorium exposure, would be that kind of 

14 activity up until the remediation work started 

15 in the '80s that this paper describes, the 

16 thorium remediation work. Remediation means 

17 just, you know, disposition.

18 There were a handful of task orders. 

19 When you talk about thorium work, there were a 

20 handful of task orders after 1979 up through 

21 maybe '85 or so, not very many.

22 But those appear to be small amounts 

23 to a particular customer and I believe what 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
59 

1 going on there was they were taking material out 

2 of storage.

3 Some of the stuff was good-quality 

4 product, thorium oxide that had been made for 

5 shipping or for their thorium reactor but had 

6 never been sent. It was good quality and well 

7 packaged. Those containers held up fine.

8 And so part of it was getting those 

9 containers, you know, shipping a little bit of 

10 material to this, kind of this customer or a 

11 little bit to that customer, so that seemed to 

12 be what those handful of task orders was acting 

13 on.

14 So we're mainly interested in then, 

15 you know, can we address exposures between '79 

16 and forward when they were maybe repackaging 

17 and then once we get into the disposal 

18 activities.

19 So there is a table in this paper 

20 that sort of lays out chronologically the 

21 exposure assessment options we have or the 

22 approach we have.

23 And so without going in minute 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
60 

1 detail about the information in the paper 

2 because everyone else can read it probably 

3 better than I can, we'll go if we will to, it's 

4 in the summary section and I don't see a table 

5 number on here but it seems to be, it's on Page 

6 12 of 147. I didn't print all the appendices 

7 so I don't have all 147 pages.

8 But there are, there is here then, 

9 "Thorium doses are recommended to be assigned 

10 as follows." This is at the bottom of Page 12 

11 and we start a table that shows chronologically 

12 the approach that we intend to use.

13 So from '79 and through, certainly 

14 through '87 or '88 -- I forget when the mobile 

15 unit stopped. Do you remember?

16 MR. ROLFES: '88 I believe. Then 

17 they switched over to the IVEC facility.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. From '79 

19 then through '88 there are in vivo results from 

20 the mobile monitoring facility that include 

21 thorium results that are printed, that are 

22 reported in units of activity for actinium-228 

23 and lead-212, so we have a number 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
61 

1 interpret.

2 After that period, in vivo was done 

3 in a fixed facility and a thorium intake or 

4 thorium burden would have been identified in 

5 the fixed facility as well and reported.

6 Now, that system did a peak search 

7 and would identify what radionuclides were 

8 there. The mobile unit always gave you a 

9 result on lead-212 and actinium-228 and uranium 

10 and so on based on a calculation of certain 

11 areas, certain areas of the spectrum.

12 So you always got a result on the 

13 mobile counter. You wouldn't necessarily see 

14 a specific thorium result on a fixed counter 

15 unless it's identified to be there.

16 MR. STIVER: Excuse me, Stu.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

18 MR. STIVER: When did you say the 

19 peak system or the fixed system came online? 

20 In 1990 and --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Think it was '89.

22 MR. STIVER: Or '89?

23 MR. ROLFES: Yes, I said '89 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
62 

1 think.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: So '88 or '89 is 

3 when it came on.

4 MR. STIVER: Just checking. How 

5 long was that system in use after that?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they shut it

7 off -- Before I left it was shut down I think.

8 MR. ROLFES: I used it in 2001. I 

9 know it was still going then.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, somewhere 

11 between 2001 and 2003 they turned it off.

12 MR. STIVER: All the way up to the 

13 demolition phase and so forth?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I mean, the 

15 building was, yes, health and safety building 

16 was torn down. The in vivo facility was, 

17 actually to a good extent I think it outlived 

18 the health and safety building. It was almost 

19 sort of a little appendage on it but I think it 

20 outlived the health and safety building by a 

21 little bit.

22 So for individuals then who have in 

23 vivo data, and that's a lot of people because 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
63 

1 anybody who got in vivo'ed in the mobile counter 

2 or anybody who got in vivo'ed is going to have 

3 an in vivo result.

4 We intend to use the in vivo data and 

5 missed doses and things like that if they are 

6 a job category that could have been involved in 

7 the repackaging.

8 And we'd be pretty encompassing 

9 about that. You figure almost anybody in 

10 operations could have done that, most anybody 

11 in maintenance. Transportation could have 

12 been involved in it. You could have safety and 

13 health people. Might have security people 

14 there.

15 So you've got to be pretty inclusive 

16 about the kinds of people that you would include 

17 in that. Even though it's only probably a 

18 small group of people who actually did the 

19 overpacking, we don't want to miss someone who 

20 should be included. So we would include in 

21 those, those people who might have been 

22 involved in some sort of exposure.

23 And, in fact, this period 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
64 

1 extends into the remediation period as well but 

2 people who might have been exposed, they will 

3 get, if they have in vivo data they will a missed 

4 dose. And this goes through '94. I'll 

5 explain that in a little bit.

6 If you don't have in vivo data, then 

7 from '79 through '89, which is I guess the 

8 mobile period, that's when we have all, for the 

9 mobile period we have all the bioassay results 

10 that were done because they were kept in log 

11 books, in a log book or essentially a book of 

12 results. And so all the in vivo results for 

13 anybody, regardless of whether they're a 

14 claimant or not, we have those.

15 After 1990 when you go to the FITS 

16 system, we only would have the in vivo results 

17 for claimants. We don't have the 

18 comprehensive list of in vivo data, so the 

19 coworker model then is intended to address the 

20 years of the mobile monitoring when we have all 

21 the in vivo data.

22 For the years '90 to '94 when we no 

23 longer have all the in vivo data, all we 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
65 

1 is claimant, you know, data from the claimants, 

2 we're proposing to use the control level that 

3 was exercised.

4 And our document makes several 

5 references to reports that were done during 

6 these activities, repackaging activities that 

7 were going on in '90 to '94 and the kinds of 

8 controls that were imposed and, you know, 

9 including when respiratory protection would be 

10 required.

11 And so our proposal is to use for 

12 this '90 to '94 period 10 percent of the derived 

13 air concentration for thorium-232 which was the 

14 control level in multiple, you know, multiple 

15 things that were written there.

16 And so this would have been, '90 to 

17 '94 would have been the end of Westinghouse, the 

18 last couple years of Westinghouse and then 

19 moving on into Fernald, into Fluor which I think 

20 started in '92 I think.

21 And then for the, and then Fluor 

22 instituted a 100 percent BZ air sampling 

23 regimen for thorium work while they were 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
66 

1 But it appears to me that that 

2 wasn't fully in effect until '95 even though 

3 Fluor got there in, like, '92. The 100 percent 

4 BZ, we haven't found that it's completely 100 

5 percent implemented until '95.

6 So from '95 until 2006, which was 

7 site closure, everyone who worked around 

8 thorium, every person wore a BZ sampler and we 

9 do have that BZ sampling database, all the data 

10 from that. So we would propose to use the BZ 

11 sampling database for individuals from '95 to 

12 2006.

13 Now, we also have in vivo data from 

14 there so, you know, in this case if we have 

15 positive data from in vivo it would trump 

16 negative data from BZ and vice versa, I mean, 

17 a negative in vivo, if you've got less in vivo, 

18 then you use the BZ data for the person.

19 So those are the proposed, you know, 

20 that's the various methods we're proposing for 

21 the various time periods post '78 based on the 

22 data available and the information we've 

23 gathered to date.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
67 

1 And then the paper goes on in some 

2 length to describe, you know, the various 

3 approaches and then there were some pretty 

4 voluminous appendices about how the data would 

5 be used.

6 MR. STIVER: I guess the thing that 

7 kind of jumped out at me was that 1990 to '94.

8 One of the questions I had was, you 

9 know, whether or not enough data to, you know, 

10 fill the coworker model or just extend what we 

11 already had and then explained that fairly 

12 well. I guess the data just weren't --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we'll have, I 

14 mean, if we had all the in vivo data, we would 

15 continue to use the in vivo coworker but we only 

16 have claimant.

17 MR. STIVER: But only have it for 

18 claimants, yes.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: All we have is 

20 claimant data from the in vivo for them. 

21 Ironically there probably is an electronic 

22 record someplace of all that but, of all that 

23 in vivo data because it was done on its own, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
68 

1 had its own MicroVAX that, you know, ran the 

2 system and I think they recorded it all.

3 MR. STIVER: What became of it 

4 after that?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: What became of that 

6 MicroVAX and the data that was in that, that's 

7 the question.

8 MR. STIVER: For that period where 

9 you propose to use 10 percent of the DAC, did 

10 you go into the future years or, not future 

11 years but, you know, '95 and beyond and kind of 

12 do a verification based on breathing zone data 

13 that you do have, whether that would, in fact, 

14 10 percent of the DAC would be bounding, 

15 assuming that nothing had changed, you know, 

16 from '90 through '95 and beyond.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't --

18 MR. STIVER: Kind of a 

19 verification.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I don't 

21 remember offhand and I don't know if anybody on 

22 the phone can comment about that or not. I 

23 don't remember that being done. I don't 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
69 

1 if anyone on the phone who was more engaged in 

2 this product can remember that or not.

3 MR. STIVER: I guess as kind of a 

4 follow-on to that there's got to be quite a few 

5 workers from '95 and beyond who would extend to 

6 earlier years too so, you know, it might be 

7 useful for identifying who was who and what they 

8 might have done and so forth.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I'm not 

10 sure I understand.

11 MR. STIVER: Well, I mean, let's 

12 say you have data for workers who were 

13 identified from '95. You know, they're 

14 claimants obviously. You can go back and look 

15 at their records and see, you know, were they 

16 also in that earlier period.

17 You might be able to kind of build 

18 a, not really a coworker model but just to kind 

19 of get an idea of how many would also extend into 

20 the earlier years when you have to use the DAC 

21 as opposed to the actual data.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so how many 

23 people from the '95 and later --

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
70 

1 MR. STIVER: Yes, were actually 

2 still in --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: -- were also 

4 working '90-'94?

5 MR. STIVER: Yes, still in that 

6 kind of a gap period of four years where you 

7 don't really have data for everybody. I don't 

8 know. I'm just going to cut, you know, cut off 

9 here. I don't know if that would really be 

10 useful in any way other than to kind of identify 

11 what proportion of workers, you know, would 

12 still have follow-on of monitoring activity 

13 later on or that it might be possible to find 

14 earlier data.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. I 

16 mean, there is some BZ data before '95 but it 

17 didn't seem to be comprehensive until '95.

18 MR. STIVER: Yes, yes. And then 

19 anything that was in HIS-20, basically that's 

20 going to be your only source for the breathing 

21 zone samples.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that's 

23 HIS-20. I think it's the database --

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
71 

1 MR. STIVER: Yes. Yes, there 

2 isn't any other --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: BZ.

4 MR. STIVER: -- source you could go 

5 look for to maybe, to run it to ground and --

6 MR. ROLFES: Independent of 

7 references, you know, handwritten references 

8 in the Site Research Database that we have gone 

9 through. We've used HIS-20 as our 

10 comprehensive source.

11 MR. STIVER: One kind of 

12 overarching question I guess is I see in a lot 

13 of these thorium White Papers that have been 

14 going on, exchanging over the course of several 

15 years now, I guess, you know, your contractor, 

16 ORAU, always mentions that this would be 

17 applied to thorium workers, you know.

18 MR. ROLFES: John, sorry to 

19 interrupt you. I was asked if you could speak 

20 up a little bit.

21 MR. STIVER: Oh okay, sorry.

22 MR. ROLFES: I think we're having 

23 trouble hearing you on the phone.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
72 

1 MR. STIVER: Not quite close enough 

2 to the mic here. Let's see, where was I?

3 MR. KATZ: Overarching question.

4 MR. STIVER: Oh yes, yes. A lot of 

5 your papers have identified we're going to 

6 apply this towards thorium workers and, you 

7 know, our research has shown that prior to about 

8 1994 I guess when some of this new information 

9 came along, this really job-identifying 

10 information is kind of sparse to say the least.

11 And so, you know, the two SECs that 

12 were based on thorium really give it to 

13 everybody because, you know, it's just 

14 impossible to say who was, you know, exposed at 

15 what time in what building and so forth.

16 So I see that kind of logic is kind 

17 of being carried through in this paper, so I'm 

18 just kind of curious. Do you guys have other 

19 sources of information you'd be able to find 

20 that identify job categories prior to 1994?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, there 

22 are --

23 MR. STIVER: Anything new I guess 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
73 

1 that we haven't looked at before?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: There was a fair 

3 amount of thorium work done by subcontract. If 

4 you read the paper, there's Project 1, 2 and 3.

5 MR. STIVER: Yes.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Project 1 was done 

7 by IT Corporation, which was removal of the 

8 thorium from silos within Plant A. Project, or 

9 now it wasn't 2 or 3. It was the neutralization 

10 of the UNH. The Pilot Plant was done by 

11 Chem-Nuclear. And so, I mean, those are 

12 separate, distinct categories of people we know 

13 who do that.

14 There's some information here about 

15 a list of job titles of people who were trained 

16 I think for one of the thorium projects, you 

17 know, the kinds of people who were involved in 

18 that.

19 But I really, I don't know that 

20 we're ever going to find, like, names that we 

21 can say this person specifically went in and, 

22 at least not with the data available.

23 MR. STIVER: So you're saying 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
74 

1 the three projects, all three of them used subs 

2 for the entire amount of work?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: No, no, no.

4 MR. STIVER: They were separate?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: No, thorium 

6 overpack was in-house.

7 MR. STIVER: Project 3 was the --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Project 3 was 

9 in-house.

10 MR. STIVER: Okay.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Project 1 was bins 

12 and silos and I forget what -- Oh, Project 2 was 

13 the outside storage. Yes, that was in-house.

14 MR. STIVER: Okay, that was 

15 in-house as well.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

17 MR. BARTON: Seemed like from your 

18 description and reading the paper there's kind 

19 of a list of pretty broad job categories. 

20 Those would be, at least being proposed to be 

21 applied up through 1994 or just for the in vivo 

22 period through '89, because it seems like once 

23 you get to 1995 you're kind of saying 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
75 

1 they're pretty much defined by the fact that 

2 they have breathing zone.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, current 

4 breathing zones. From '95 forward they're 

5 defined by having breathing zone air sampler 

6 for thorium.

7 MR. BARTON: Right. So you're 

8 essentially saying there's no coworker model 

9 after 1994?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct.

11 MR. BARTON: Right, okay. I guess 

12 another question I had about that with the 

13 breathing zone specifically and I haven't been 

14 able to dive into the references yet but, I 

15 mean, when we say that breathing zone is 

16 provided for all thorium workers, I mean, are 

17 we talking, you know, the main handlers of it?

18 But what about, like, you know, sort 

19 of ancillary workers that might have been in 

20 close vicinity, like a security guard or 

21 something like that? I mean, would they have 

22 to also been included in the breathing zone?

23 I mean, is there a possibility 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
76 

1 you'd have workers who do have exposure 

2 potential but maybe weren't considered thorium 

3 workers for the purposes of breathing zone?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, by this time, 

5 by '94, things were pretty controlled. You 

6 know, Fluor had been there a while and they 

7 brought a lot of rigor to these things, even 

8 more so than Westinghouse.

9 MR. BARTON: So pretty much if you 

10 were in the vicinity of a project, you were 

11 going to have a breathing --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: A project, you 

13 know, a thorium work area would, you know, the 

14 thorium area would be defined.

15 MR. BARTON: And anyone entering 

16 that --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: And if you're going 

18 into this, into the thorium radiological area 

19 or the airborne, you know, potential airborne 

20 area, everybody had a BZ with them.

21 You know, I went in. When I would 

22 go in to do an observation, you know, I was some 

23 pencil-pushing manager, I wore a BZ. That's 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
77 

1 what I was. I didn't do any real work.

2 MR. STIVER: So you didn't have to 

3 worry about, like, janitors and staff?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: If they went in, 

5 they wore BZ.

6 MR. STIVER: You're pretty 

7 confident that --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

9 MR. STIVER: -- anybody who went in 

10 that area had --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: You went into that 

12 area, you wore a BZ.

13 MR. STIVER: And all that data is 

14 captured?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: It is all in HIS-20.

16 MR. STIVER: It seemed like a 

17 pretty high bar to set, that we have no 

18 unmonitored workers during this period of time.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm pretty sure 

20 there are not. I mean, it was controlled. The 

21 area was controlled, you know, to the point of 

22 having manned, you know, manned patrol and so 

23 I'm pretty sure that anybody who went into 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
78 

1 thorium area from '95 on had a BZ sampler.

2 MR. STIVER: Now, back to Project 1 

3 and 2, I know that IT did the Project 1 in '89. 

4 Were they also doing the D&D of Plant 8 silo, 

5 did they also do all of the, do it from start 

6 to finish?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I believe, IT 

8 did that whole thing.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay, all right. 

10 Those kind of questions, whether there were 

11 somebody else or some of the in-plant workers 

12 might have done the D&D but it was all 

13 contracted out then?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't 

15 really remember. The paper reports that that 

16 was all part of Project 1, of the silos, the 

17 bins, not Plant 8 itself. You know, Plant 8 was 

18 still there when that project was done.

19 MR. BARTON: So I might have heard 

20 the answer and it just passed right through one 

21 ear and out the other. I'm trying to get a 

22 handle on how we're assigning the proposed 

23 coworker intakes. Like I said, there's a 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
79 

1 of workers that, and one of them is, you know, 

2 operations, you know what I mean, pretty broad 

3 category.

4 It seems like what you're actually 

5 saying is that unless you were a secretary or 

6 something like that, an administrative 

7 position, then you wouldn't even have come 

8 close to these sites of operations so it's not 

9 appropriate to apply coworker intakes. I 

10 mean, is that essentially what we're saying or, 

11 I mean.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I think it's 

13 going to be a pretty wide net because, you know, 

14 to avoid excluding people that should be 

15 included.

16 MR. BARTON: It almost seems like 

17 it would have been better to just go from the 

18 other direction and say everybody gets it 

19 unless you were clearly an administrative 

20 worker, that kind of thing, because I mean --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think 

22 that's probably, I mean, we put some examples 

23 of jobs here that, and the jobs we listed 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
80 

1 jobs that were identified I think by the 

2 training roster, right?

3 But I think in actuality the 

4 approach will be unless this person was clearly 

5 administrative or cafeteria worker or, you 

6 know, someone who clearly is not going to be in 

7 a process area, unless it's somebody like that, 

8 they're going to be in.

9 MR. BARTON: For the 1990 to 1994 

10 period where proposing using the percentage of 

11 the DAC, I assume we're not using in vivo 

12 results because we simply don't have them for 

13 the entire work force. We only have claimant 

14 results?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: We only have 

16 claimant results.

17 MR. BARTON: Do we have an idea of 

18 maybe how many claimant results we actually 

19 have to, I mean, I'm not sure. I mean, I don't 

20 think it would be the first time that you 

21 actually built a coworker model based on 

22 claimant data.

23 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, I suppose 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
81 

1 that could be feasible. Mark, could you make 

2 a note of that?

3 MR. ROLFES: Yes.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean I think 

5 that's something we could try. We'd have to 

6 look for claimants who have employment in those 

7 years and we'd have to open each file to see we 

8 have in vivo results.

9 MR. BARTON: It would be 

10 interesting to compare for the claimants who 

11 have the monitoring results, compare what those 

12 intakes would be versus the 10 percent DAC 

13 value, I mean, 10 percent is a little above what 

14 --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Realistically I 

16 think most monitored, most people with

17 potential exposure were probably monitored. 

18 Now, they were probably monitored for the 

19 purpose of potential uranium exposure but if 

20 they found thorium, I mean, in vivo it would pop 

21 out, so.

22 MR. BARTON: And the actual --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: I would think most, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
82 

1 you know, occupationally exposed people who 

2 worked in that period are probably going to have 

3 at least one in vivo count in a four-year period 

4 if they were there the whole time. I would 

5 think they'd have maybe more than one.

6 MR. BARTON: And just the all

7 worker data for that period is just not 

8 available? Like nobody knows where it is or, 

9 I mean, is it possible that that could be 

10 obtained?

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we've 

12 looked for that already. I think we've looked 

13 for it and have not been able to come up with 

14 it.

15 My concern is it's an electronic 

16 record, whatever data storage the MicroVAX was 

17 using, and I don't know that it ever got 

18 translated into a paper record.

19 MR. STIVER: The claimant data 

20 would be available for us to review then?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Claimant data, 

22 sure. Yes, claimant data would be in the claim 

23 file.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
83 

1 MR. STIVER: And how about the 

2 breathing zone data? We'd certainly like to 

3 take a look at that.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Breathing zone 

5 data is in his claim. We should be able to get 

6 that.

7 MR. STIVER: Get to that?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Have you seen that?

9 MR. STIVER: Yes.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

11 MR. ROLFES: I'm just looking at a 

12 document from the Site Research Database. It 

13 looks like ORAUT had taken a look at 248 

14 uncensored lead-212 chest count results that 

15 were collected between 1998 and May of 2002.

16 So we've got at least 248 results 

17 that we can use possibly to, you know, calculate 

18 lung burdens and compare those to the derived 

19 air concentration.

20 MR. BARTON: That's a different 

21 period of time though.

22 MR. STIVER: Yes, it's a little bit 

23 later.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
84 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that's later. 

2 That is 2002, we are looking '90 to '94. 

3 (Simultaneous speaking)

4 MR. STIVER: Yes, there's some way 

5 you can do some sort of proof of principle to, 

6 you know, demonstrate that 10 percent of the DAC 

7 would be validated, you know, even looking at, 

8 you know, later data.

9 I'm assuming that you look at DAC, 

10 extrapolate, you know, assuming exposure 

11 potential would be changed or even, better yet, 

12 you could find some of the claimant data and use 

13 that.

14 MR. BARTON: Yes.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, I think 

16 there are probably references to describe when 

17 respiratory protection was required on some of 

18 that work in '90 to '94 because, I mean, we're 

19 talking about pretty mature programs in the 

20 1990s.

21 MR. BARTON: In looking at the 

22 proposed coworker for the in vivo data 1989 and 

23 prior, I notice that it did calculate intakes 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
85 

1 at the 95th percentile which, you know, would 

2 be used as a constant, but there weren't really 

3 any instructions as to when that kind of a 

4 intake would be applicable, I mean --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we didn't go 

6 to that degree of detail in, you know, 

7 establishing at this point, you know, 

8 establishing here are the techniques, 

9 essentially what we proposed.

10 And there are some, granted, there 

11 are some decision criteria that have to be 

12 bandied about, you know, when you assign the 

13 coworker, you know, so on and so forth.

14 But it has to be, you know, this is 

15 sort of a demonstration that we believe that 

16 dose reconstruction is feasible and that we 

17 understand that there would be some additional 

18 essentially Site Profile questions. How will 

19 these approaches be applied?

20 MR. BARTON: That sort of has 

21 larger implications for the SEC Work Group, in 

22 going through with the implementation of that. 

23 I was just curious if you had any ideas or 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
86 

1 thoughts on how that might apply in this case, 

2 but that's farther down the road.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Which, ideas and 

4 thoughts in terms of --

5 MR. BARTON: The application of, 

6 say, the 95th percentile to a given worker 

7 versus the GM and the GSD and you're actually 

8 calculating the POC.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess I'm not --

10 MR. STIVER: It's something comes 

11 up in a lot of settings outside of Fernald 

12 basically. You know, what's the guidance to 

13 does reconstructors, kind of up to them, you 

14 know, using their own knowledge and experience. 

15 This guy deserves a GM or he was highly exposed 

16 or 50th percentile or a constant.

17 So something like that would go into 

18 a final coworker model. It would be the next 

19 step down the road.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, right.

21 MALE PARTICIPANT: Is there any 

22 other question?

23 MR. BARTON: This one is kind 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
87 

1 specific so maybe this one is for someone on the 

2 phone.

3 I was just curious. They used a 

4 post-weighting OPOS calculation just for the 

5 1989 and prior period. I was just wondering 

6 because when you look at the data set there's 

7 a lot of very negative numbers that are in there 

8 and I was just curious if those were adjusted 

9 at all because I didn't see any mention of it.

10 When you have, like, a result of, 

11 like, 212 with minus 40 nanocurie, you know. I 

12 don't if that was removed or if it was adjusted 

13 to 0 or, you know, how these, because, you know, 

14 over 95 percent of the observed data for that 

15 period is essentially below what we believe to 

16 be the MDA.

17 So there's a lot of results that are 

18 kind of in that gray area and I'm just curious 

19 if those were treated in any manner to adjust 

20 them or if you sort of took them at face value 

21 and plugged them into the OPOS calculation and 

22 --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Dr. Neton and 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
88 

1 I had a discussion about this following the last 

2 SEC Issues Work Group and it's pretty clear that 

3 if you're doing a weighted OPOS that a negative 

4 result can't really be treated as a negative 

5 because essentially you're subtracting 

6 exposure for some period of time if you treat 

7 it as a negative.

8 So I don't know if we came to a 

9 resolution about how it would be treated. It 

10 would have to be adjusted either to 0 or to a 

11 limited detached inner half of MDA or 

12 something.

13 There's some sort of adjustment has 

14 to be done because you can't leave it as a 0. 

15 If you're going to be a time, it's got to be time 

16 weighted.

17 MR. STIVER: A lot of the graphs 

18 that you present, I mean, first of all, the data 

19 was adjusted for bias in actinium in the lab.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

21 MR. STIVER: And then the plot, 

22 basically just so that the slope of the line to 

23 the null distribution, the normal distribution 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
89 

1 for the sub-MDL data will go to 0 so it's going 

2 to be your geometric mean or your mean for that 

3 data. So I didn't have any problem with that.

4 I guess the other aspect of this 

5 using Report 44 -- This kind of is related to 

6 OPOS I guess. The data above the MDL are going 

7 to be used as they have been --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

9 MR. STIVER: Whether it is going to 

10 be a weighted program or not, I guess your 

11 question was really what are you going to do 

12 with, you know, the old data --

13 MR. BARTON: Yes. Well, I was 

14 just, like, it's not evident immediately upon 

15 inspection of report if it necessarily 

16 adjusted, like Stu was saying, whether you 

17 treat it as --

18 MR. STIVER: Will it be used at all 

19 or, you know, there was the idea that a maximum 

20 possible mean, at one point some of our earlier 

21 discussions, the SEC --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, maximum 

23 possible mean would have adjusted it to, and 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
90 

1 negative result would have been adjusted to, 

2 like, the minimum detectable or something, 

3 right. I don't remember exactly. I don't 

4 know if we actually reached a final decision as 

5 part of the SEC Work Group.

6 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is all kind 

7 of ongoing at that point.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: So it's wrapped up 

9 in that and I don't know that we've really 

10 reached a final decision on it but Jim and I did 

11 talk about it and agreed that if you're time 

12 weighting each sample it makes no sense to 

13 include them as a negative.

14 You can't include a negative 

15 because you're essentially subtracting 

16 exposures, whatever period of time that sample 

17 represents, and that doesn't seem to make any, 

18 that doesn't make any sense.

19 MR. BARTON: Yes, because, I mean, 

20 I'm looking at Table 2 of the coworker study and 

21 even at the 84th percentile they're all, for 

22 every year that we're looking at here, they're 

23 all essentially half the MDA.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
91 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Of course, recall, 

2 this, to me, it is not all that surprising 

3 because we're coming to years of '79 through '88 

4 when the thorium for the most part was sitting 

5 in warehouses.

6 And these in vivo results came out 

7 because people were being monitored for uranium 

8 and this thorium result popped out. So it's 

9 not surprising that there's that not really 

10 much --

11 MR. BARTON: Right, there was 

12 exposure because we did observe samples taken 

13 from workers in that time period after 

14 production had ceased that were positive, 

15 whereas they also had samples in 1979 when 

16 production was still going on that were not 

17 positive so, you know --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: There were 

19 examples, you know, being exposed.

20 MR. STIVER: There were some 

21 exposed personnel in that area.

22 MR. BARTON: So these could be low 

23 because the workers actually involved 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
92 

1 thorium were just a smaller population of the 

2 overall monitored population, not that they 

3 necessarily, the exposure potential was that 

4 low. It could be just an artifact of a smaller 

5 number of workers actually involved who could 

6 have had the exposure potential.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, then the 

8 question, you know, so of the people who could 

9 have been thorium exposed, you know, we have 

10 some here who were actually monitored.

11 The coworker would be applied if we 

12 don't have in vivo result for some reason and 

13 in all likelihood in the job titles that we're 

14 talking about there's probably not going to be 

15 very many people to actually get this coworker 

16 model because most of the people are going to 

17 have an in vivo result if they were potentially 

18 exposed.

19 There were some, you know, 

20 claustrophobes who couldn't tolerate being in 

21 a mobile counter, you know, and maybe some 

22 people for some reason or another weren't there 

23 particularly long but most of the people who 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
93 

1 were potentially exposed, you're going to have 

2 an in vivo result back there. You're going to 

3 have in vivo monitoring.

4 MR. STIVER: Do you have any other 

5 question or --

6 MR. BARTON: I don't.

7 MR. STIVER: Anybody on the line? 

8 Maybe John Mauro or Joyce have some questions 

9 about the post-SEC thorium?

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, I'm here listening 

11 in.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Was that you, 

13 John?

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, I'm here 

15 listening.

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, did John 

17 have anything to add?

18 DR. LIPSZTEIN: This is Joyce. I 

19 have a very technical question. My --

20 MR. KATZ: Joyce, can you speak up? 

21 Let me turn up the volume here too, but okay.

22 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Can you hear me?

23 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's much better. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
94 

1 Thanks.

2 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. I have one 

3 technical question about the use of lead-212. 

4 How is NIOSH going to assign the time of 

5 exposure in relation to the time of preparation 

6 of thorium, because mostly -- I don't know if 

7 this is too technical and we shouldn't discuss 

8 in our Working Group meeting. I basically 

9 agree with everything that NIOSH is doing on 

10 lead-212.

11 Actually we already sent, had a 

12 White Paper. SC&A had a White Paper saying the 

13 same thing so we agree on mostly everything and 

14 we agree that the pattern is not exactly SEC 

15 issue. Is probably a CDC issue on how to use 

16 the lead-212.

17 And I couldn't understand from the 

18 draft paper, the next draft paper that NIOSH 

19 gave to us. How did time of lead, of 

20 measurement is going to relate to the time after 

21 separation, because after one year after 

22 separation, the actinium and the lead-212 

23 should be the same. Most of the 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
95 

1 after they were corrected for bias they are the 

2 same.

3 So I don't know what this model is 

4 unfavorable, if it is used one year after 

5 separation and then we would expect lead and 

6 actinium to be the same or if NIOSH is going to 

7 use another time before one year after 

8 separation and use actinium as -- for its 

9 rating. So I think this has to be clarified.

10 As for the coworker model, I have a 

11 thing that I would like to ask.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. 

13 Could we --

14 DR. LIPSZTEIN: It's very 

15 difficult to ask.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- break before we 

17 get into this?

18 MR. KATZ: So, Joyce --

19 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Stu just asked if we 

21 could take a brief --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Take a brief break 

23 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
96 

1 MR. KATZ: -- comfort break before 

2 we started out on this topic.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, before we get 

4 into discussion on this topic?

5 MR. KATZ: Sure. So let's take a, 

6 is ten minutes enough, 15 minutes --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Ten.

8 MR. KATZ: Ten minutes? So let's 

9 just, the line will stay on. I'm just going to 

10 mute the line but it's 10:30 so 10:40 Eastern 

11 Time we'll pick up again.

12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

13 matter went off the record at 10:30 a.m. and 

14 resumed at 10:42 a.m.)

15 MR. KATZ: So we're back. Let me 

16 just check and see if we have our Board Members 

17 back on the line with us and Joyce too, so --

18 MEMBER GRIFFON: Griffon on the 

19 line.

20 MR. KATZ: Great, Mark. And, 

21 Paul, are you back on the line? And you, Phil? 

22 Might be on mute. Paul, Phil, are you on the 

23 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
97 

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm on the line. 

2 This is Ziemer.

3 MR. KATZ: Great. How about you, 

4 Phil? And about Joyce, Joyce, are you on the 

5 line? Joyce? Maybe you're on mute. Well, we 

6 need Joyce to get going here. Joyce?

7 MR. BARTON: I know she was out of 

8 power so she may have turned off her cell phone 

9 just for ten minutes to come back on so she 

10 didn't waste the battery.

11 MR. KATZ: Joyce, are you on the 

12 line? Wonder if we can pop her an email to 

13 check with her.

14 MR. BARTON: Power's out, so.

15 MR. KATZ: Oh, right.

16 MR. STIVER: Actually she was able 

17 to connect onto their email.

18 MR. KATZ: Oh, really?

19 MR. BARTON: I don't know if she's 

20 using Gmail on her phone or what.

21 MR. KATZ: Joyce, are you back on 

22 the line?

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Now I feel bad 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
98 

1 asking for a break.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: What about the 

3 other Board Members? Were they there?

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, except for Phil. I 

5 haven't heard from Phil.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. While 

7 we're waiting for Joyce, I've got a question for 

8 Stu. I'm just trying to understand something 

9 about Fernald and this is the thorium storage 

10 facility. Where was this?

11 MR. HINNEFELD: There were a few. 

12 Buildings 64 and 65 which are sometimes 

13 referred to as the thorium warehouse and the old 

14 Plant 5 warehouse were on the north. They were 

15 northeast on the property, kind of removed from 

16 areas where people typically work.

17 There was a thorium warehouse over 

18 by Plant 1. I forget the building number right 

19 now, might be 66 or 67, that left -- my 

20 recollection was that was mainly where the 

21 nice-quality stuff was stored. Stuff they 

22 made for medicine for the most part.

23 And then there was some 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
99 

1 At least for some period of time there was 

2 thorium stored in what's called the Pilot Plant 

3 warehouse which was on the southwestern part.

4 These all were kind of on the outer 

5 rim of the production area from the northeast, 

6 out. You know, the main production area really 

7 went through Plant 9 which was the 

8 northeastern-most plant and then you still have 

9 the next block up was the thorium warehouses.

10 And then going to the northwest you 

11 had Plant 1, which was the most northwestern 

12 plant and across the street was the Plant 1 

13 warehouse.

14 And then the Pilot Plant was really 

15 even a little more south. You know, you think 

16 of this kind of square production area. The 

17 Pilot Plant really was kind of down, over here 

18 and down, and then the Pilot Plant warehouse 

19 was, I want to say west of it. Must have been 

20 west of it. It's getting hard to remember all 

21 this stuff.

22 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. Well, 

23 the reason why I was wondering this is because 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
100 

1 at numerous other sites, Hanford in particular 

2 in some ways, actually Fernald became the 

3 thorium --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the thorium 

5 repository, yes.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Repository 

7 because I was sitting there looking at Hanford 

8 and I saw train cars of --

9 MR. ROLFES: Tetrahydrate, TNT?

10 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right. Being 

11 shipped out and stuff like that and I was 

12 wondering how and where it went. I guess I was 

13 visualizing in my mind that these warehouses 

14 weren't really all that big. I thought they 

15 were just kind of fairly small but to be able 

16 to do a lot of this it looks like they were 

17 fairly large buildings.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, you remember 

19 when they were shipping back the TNT from, I 

20 mean, that would have been dissolved by Pilot 

21 Plant? They run through the Pilot Plant?

22 MR. ROLFES: That would have been, 

23 yes,'60s time period, '70s, early '70s 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
101 

1 they were shipping. I think there were 

2 30-something train carloads that had gone from 

3 Hanford back to Fernald because that was one of 

4 the issues that we had discussed with the 

5 contamination levels of U-233 in the thorium --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh. Well, in that 

7 case, that was what was then dissolved and 

8 that's what was stored, is thorium nitrate. 

9 They placed the thorium nitrate in the Pilot 

10 Plant.

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, that's, 

12 you know --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: So I don't know 

14 when it came in. I don't know where they staged 

15 it because this, you know, in the '60s and so 

16 on, that's well before my time so I don't know 

17 when these train cars came in. I don't know 

18 where they offloaded and staged it or anything 

19 like that. But in terms of the actual, you 

20 know, processing of it, they --

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: That's what 

22 went through kind of --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: That 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
102 

1 gone in the Pilot Plant and if it had the, if 

2 it's the stuff of U-233, that was the thorium 

3 nitrate that was stored at the Pilot Plant, you 

4 know, the liquid, that was project whatever.

5 No, it's not one of the projects. 

6 It's what Chem Nuclear took care of many years 

7 later because that was stored there.

8 The entire time I worked, you know, 

9 almost the entire time I worked there, there was 

10 this thorium nitrate and we had U-233 on the 

11 nuclear materials inventory. It was only the 

12 U-233 that was a contaminant in the --

13 (Simultaneous speaking)

14 MR. STIVER: Right. Savannah 

15 River, I mean, just stayed on the tracks for 20 

16 years.

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes, because in 

18 the Site Profile stuff, I read of these train 

19 cars and stuff like that, of having, breaking 

20 down, having redrumming runs and so forth like 

21 that. There were so many different ones like 

22 this --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: There might 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
103 

1 little thorium nitrate spread between here and 

2 Hanford along rail lines as far as I know. Or 

3 highways. Yes, or highways.

4 (Laughter)

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, well, I 

6 thank you. I was just trying to figure out. I 

7 was trying to just make a mental picture of it 

8 because trying to, all the different buildings 

9 and --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: 65 was pretty big. 

11 64 was not quite as a big.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes, we'll talk 

13 about the others --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: If you want to talk 

15 at lunch or offline, we can talk, sure.

16 MR. KATZ: Let's check and see. Do 

17 we have Joyce back on the line?

18 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, I am.

19 MR. KATZ: Oh, great. And do we 

20 also have Phil back on the line? I think I 

21 heard him cough or something.

22 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, you do.

23 MR. KATZ: Okay, great. We're 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
104 

1 ready to go then. Go ahead.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, Joyce, I'm 

3 sorry I interrupted you but if you could start 

4 up again, I would like to address this entirety 

5 because I just wasn't going to last very long 

6 without a break.

7 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. Maybe it's 

8 better if you look at Page 109 of your draft, 

9 the nice document that you sent to us.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Is this strictly 

11 the coworker?

12 DR. LIPSZTEIN: No, it's not the 

13 coworker.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so it's the 

15 other one. Okay, I didn't think coworker --

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: It's the other one. 

17 Page 109.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I'm at 109 

19 now.

20 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. So you see 

21 there is Figure 6?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

23 DR. LIPSZTEIN: And then there is a 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
105 

1 paragraph just below Figure 6. And the last 

2 sentence says, because thorium separation 

3 activities ceased at Fernald in 1979, a time 

4 post separation of over a year is most likely 

5 the case.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

7 DR. LIPSZTEIN: We agree with that. 

8 It's a technical thing of how you calculate it 

9 from lead and actinium because all this paper 

10 says, that intakes are going to be calculated 

11 from lead-212 and the actinium is going to be 

12 considered, assumed to be from unsupported 

13 radium, which is okay also. It should be 

14 unsupported radium maybe. I don't know.

15 But, anyway, as you go from '79 to 

16 '89 you have more than four year. You know, you 

17 have ten years after '79, so it's ten years 

18 after separation. So there are some years 

19 where actinium and lead-212 are going to be the 

20 same amount, predicted to be the same amount.

21 And if you consider that there was 

22 chronic intakes instead of acute intake because 

23 Figure 6 is for acute intakes, if you considered 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
106 

1 chronic intakes after one year after 

2 separation, so would be after '80, the 

3 activities of lead-212 and actinium-228 would 

4 be predicted to be equal.

5 And in this document also you have 

6 shown that after correction for bias, most of 

7 the weight of actinium and lead can be 

8 considered like equal activities.

9 So my question is, are you going to 

10 deal differently with this first five years on 

11 how to calculate the activities from lead? Are 

12 you going to consider acute intakes? Are you 

13 going to consider chronic intakes? Suppose 

14 you just have one result for that worker?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'm going to 

16 ask if Tom --

17 DR. LIPSZTEIN: So this is very 

18 technical.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. I 

20 understand. I'm going to ask if Tom LaBone has 

21 been contacted to get on the phone.

22 MR. LaBONE: This is Tom LaBone. 

23 I'm here.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
107 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, Tom, I 

2 believe this is the part of the conversation 

3 that you took your time off from vacation for. 

4 Is that right?

5 MR. LaBONE: Yes, yes.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Do you want 

7 to respond?

8 MR. LaBONE: Tom LaBone, ORAU team. 

9 I have no conflicts with Fernald. I did not 

10 introduce myself at the beginning.

11 There's two things here, I guess. 

12 The first is that we have a standard mixture for 

13 thorium that's triple-separated thorium which 

14 will give a bounding intake if you're going to 

15 go off of lead-212 and so you don't have to 

16 specify the relationship between the chest 

17 count date and the date of the separation of the 

18 thorium.

19 And that's described I think in this 

20 paper and also there is a new OTIB-76 out which 

21 goes into great detail on how to actually do 

22 these calculations. It gives guidance to the 

23 dose reconstructor.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
108 

1 And in that same document it talks 

2 about, again, the situation that Joyce is 

3 talking about where you know separation stopped 

4 in '79. That gives a table for each year after 

5 that, what the, basically the ratio is between 

6 the actinium and the thorium.

7 So you can use the actinium if it's 

8 not during the time frame in which separations 

9 are taking place, I think, which is the most of 

10 the data which will be in after it.

11 So this is basically to give some 

12 flexibility to the dose reconstructor 

13 depending upon what information they have, use 

14 either lead or actinium. So I don't know if 

15 that addresses the question, but I can go on 

16 from there if you need some more detail.

17 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. No, that's 

18 okay. And I think we're done. I don't have 

19 anything, you know, major except for some 

20 details on how to calculate things.

21 And another thing that I would like 

22 to ask for the coworker data, I don't know if 

23 it's -- in the past when we reviewed coworker 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
109 

1 data, there was a special file in the O: drive 

2 that could see which data was used in the 

3 coworker model.

4 Now we don't and so in other files 

5 to review the coworker model without knowing

6 exactly which data were used because some of, 

7 you know, even if we have the data from, all the 

8 in vivo data from somewhere not used for one 

9 reason or another.

10 And so for us to review the coworker 

11 model would be much easier if, as before, we had 

12 the raw data that were used in the model.

13 So I don't know if it's possible but 

14 if it is possible to again put on the O: drive 

15 as before the data that were used for 

16 calculation, would make our task much easier to 

17 review it.

18 MR. LaBONE: Yes, what we did, I 

19 think, starting with this coworker model is 

20 what we're doing is we have the original data 

21 set and then any changes that are made to the 

22 data set are done with a script using our 

23 programming language.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
110 

1 And so what's on the O: drive will 

2 be the original data, the script which makes any 

3 changes to the data, the script that actually 

4 does the OPOS, the script that does the things 

5 to come up with the 50th and 84th percentiles.

6 And then also the intake 

7 calculations, which could not be done with IMBA 

8 this time, also had to be done using a script 

9 because IMBA will not calculate given, for 

10 example, lead-212 chest burden, it won't give 

11 you a thorium intake. It does not have the 

12 ability to do that.

13 And so, anyway, that's one little 

14 package that's in a zip file and you can 

15 download that and if you're not familiar with 

16 ours you can probably follow it or get somebody 

17 to help you.

18 But anyway, it should be completely 

19 reproducible and you won't have to be juggling 

20 Excel spreadsheets and trying to figure out how 

21 things were done.

22 So it should be much clearer than it 

23 has been in the past and we can get you, 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
111 

1 sure, that zip file so you can go through it 

2 yourself and see what you think about what we 

3 did.

4 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay. Actually 

5 the most important thing is to have the data 

6 that you have used but I'm using other softwares 

7 besides IMBA so I don't have this problem with 

8 going back to trying to search it too but I don't 

9 have the data that you used, so.

10 MR. LaBONE: What software are you 

11 using to do that?

12 MR. BARTON: Just to clarify --

13 DR. LIPSZTEIN: 8, the one from 

14 Vastalle.

15 MR. LaBONE: Oh, Louis, okay. 

16 Okay.

17 MR. BARTON: Joyce, if I might, I 

18 think what you're saying is we do have the 

19 original Excel file compilation of all the in 

20 vivo results. I think what you're interested 

21 in seeing is which signals were removed.

22 DR. LIPSZTEIN: On the coworker 

23 model they say they didn't use some of the 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
112 

1 so it's better to have exactly what data they 

2 used instead of --

3 MR. BARTON: There's an outline of 

4 generalities of which data was removed in the 

5 coworker model but without seeing exactly which 

6 data points were used --

7 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, exactly. So 

8 if we have the exact data that were used would 

9 be, you know, much easier for us to review the 

10 work.

11 MR. LaBONE: Okay. I think this 

12 will give you what you're looking for so if 

13 there's something that's not there I'm sure we 

14 can get it for you but --

15 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay, thank you.

16 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

17 When Joyce, can everyone hear me okay?

18 MR. KATZ: Yes. Thanks, John.

19 DR. MAURO: I have more of a 

20 conceptual, simple question. I'm envisioning 

21 a worker who is exposed to both freshly 

22 separated thorium, so there wouldn't be any or 

23 very much progeny or any progeny potentially 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
113 

1 from chest count.

2 And he's also simultaneously 

3 working with somewhat aged thorium where you 

4 would have the ingrowth of the, certainly the 

5 lead-212, paucity of lead-212, and perhaps a 

6 little bit of actinium.

7 So if he's exposed to, like, two 

8 different kinds, freshly separated and some 

9 aged, my question is, not to get into the 

10 technical of it, but you're saying that you do 

11 have algorithms that could tease that out and 

12 figure out what the thorium body burden would 

13 be when you --

14 MR. LaBONE: The answer is no. I 

15 don't know of any way of going that way. What 

16 we do is that with this triple-separated 

17 thorium has been proposed as being bounding no 

18 matter what the mixture is and so you don't have 

19 to know what the mixture was or the time since 

20 separation.

21 To do what you're saying, you'd have 

22 to really kind of know what, you know, how many 

23 separations and what the time frame of those 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
114 

1 separations was and a lot of times we're not 

2 going to know that.

3 So it's a problem of having unknown 

4 mixtures we had to deal with and our proposed 

5 solution to that was this triple-separated 

6 thorium which we discussed in a number of 

7 different papers. As far as we can see, it will 

8 give a bounding estimate using that to 

9 calculate the thorium intake.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay. Yes, my main 

11 question is was that, you do have the 

12 wherewithal to come to grips with that 

13 circumstance. I didn't want to get into 

14 details of --

15 MR. LaBONE: Yes. The information 

16 we'll use but if you have information, you can 

17 refine it and make it more accurate so, again, 

18 most times it's tough to figure out what it was 

19 they were exposed to.

20 DR. MAURO: Okay, no. Thank you. 

21 That's all. I just wanted to know that that has 

22 been, is a subject that you looked at and you 

23 feel that your current protocol has a 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
115 

1 deal with that in a reasonable way.

2 MR. LaBONE: Yes, I believe so.

3 DR. MAURO: Okay, thank you.

4 MR. STIVER: I guess at this point, 

5 we're ready to move on to the issues matrix 

6 unless anyone has any more questions about the 

7 thorium paper.

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: In just 

9 listening to him, I want to make sure that I'm 

10 understanding because John's comment was going 

11 to that. By going to this triple separation, 

12 they're actually saying that the unknown is 

13 taken out of it? Is that kind of like the 

14 worst-case scenario?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. I just 

17 wanted to make sure that I was understanding how 

18 that is going because I was looking at the 

19 graphs here and stuff like that and that's kind 

20 of what I've got the feeling of so I just wanted 

21 to make sure of that, so okay.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Brad, just a 

23 question. This is Ziemer.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
116 

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Paul, go ahead.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, this is just a 

3 procedural question. It's really directed to 

4 SC&A. Is there a plan then to have some 

5 official, an official review of this?

6 You've had these preliminary 

7 questions and it sounds like you're in a fairly 

8 good place. Is there going to be a formal 

9 review of this that will spell out some 

10 additional issues or you're not closing this, 

11 are you?

12 MR. STIVER: No. This is John 

13 Stiver, Paul. We have been tasked to do a 

14 complete, thorough review.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, that's what 

16 I thought.

17 MR. STIVER: Yes.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: So you're just 

19 raising the initial questions then?

20 MR. STIVER: Yes, we're just trying 

21 to focus in on certain issues today.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, got you.

23 MR. STIVER: Going to help shape 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
117 

1 our strategy.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, thank you.

3 MR. STIVER: Okay, should we move 

4 on?

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes.

6 MR. STIVER: This is Stiver again. 

7 Those of you who have Live Meeting, I've pulled 

8 up the Fernald Site Profile Issues Matrix, 

9 Revision 2, which was just delivered over the 

10 weekend.

11 And you'll recall that the Site 

12 Profile Review was delivered back in November 

13 of 2006. Shortly after that, we began, we were 

14 tasked to do the SEC Evaluation Report Review 

15 and so a great deal of the Site Profile findings 

16 were tabled pending resolution of the SEC.

17 And so a lot of these findings that 

18 we have that are being carried on the books are 

19 about eight years old. Some of them are still 

20 pertinent. Others are no longer really 

21 relevant because of developments in the program 

22 over the past eight years that have kind of 

23 rendered them moot.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
118 

1 In addition to that, a lot of the 

2 questions that we have in the, the carryover 

3 questions, both related to the former five SEC 

4 categories as well as these Site Profile, the 

5 33 Site Profile findings, are related to 

6 internal exposures and some related to thorium 

7 in the post-SEC period and others related to 

8 recycled uranium and some other aspects.

9 And, you know, obviously until the 

10 thorium post-SEC methodology is reviewed and 

11 any findings resolved, NIOSH won't be able to 

12 put out the TBD revision for internal dose.

13 So a lot of these are kind of being 

14 held in abeyance until such time as we'll be 

15 able to take a look at the final TBD revision 

16 and take it on from there.

17 So there's probably about 20 issues 

18 that we can look at today. Last time, back in 

19 April, we closed out six that were related to 

20 the, remember the DWE approach to thorium 

21 intake modeling which was the basis for the 

22 largest of the thorium-based SECs.

23 But I'm going to go ahead, 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
119 

1 everybody can see this, I'm going to work my way 

2 down and we can just kind of go through them.

3 The ones that are in abeyance I'll 

4 just briefly mention or that are closed. And 

5 here we are. I won't bother with the closed 

6 findings.

7 This is Finding 1. This is all 

8 related to the thorium DWE. Finding 2, Finding 

9 3.

10 And Finding 4, this is related to 

11 thorium in the post-SEC period and you can see 

12 back in April of 2010 we had mentioned that 

13 NIOSH's response kind of opened the door for a 

14 new time period and new methodologies which we 

15 have not reviewed.

16 And you can see our latest response 

17 in red bold font is that we would recommend 

18 keeping this finding open pending our formal 

19 review of the NIOSH White Paper and so that will 

20 be a theme we will see often today.

21 TBD Issue Number 5, this is another 

22 related to thorium fires again. This post-SEC 

23 period comes into concern for us and 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
120 

1 recommend keeping that open until we have a 

2 chance to take a look at the, we do our review 

3 and see how it's incorporated into the new TBD.

4 Let's see. Let's see. Six was 

5 closed. Seven, this is another one related to 

6 internal doses from raffinate streams, from ore 

7 processing in Plant 2/3. This, I believe, 

8 became SEC Issue Number 4. Some of these 

9 findings were kind of wrapped together. 

10 Again, we recommend keeping this in abeyance. 

11 We basically are in agreement with NIOSH's 

12 proposed methodology.

13 As you can see down here in Column 

14 3, the bottom of the page, detailed discussion 

15 of SEC Issue 4 took place at the April 2011 Work 

16 Group meeting where SC&A agreed that NIOSH's 

17 methods were bounding and sufficiently 

18 accurate.

19 This then needs to be incorporated 

20 into TBD 5 and we recommend keeping this in 

21 abeyance until such time as that happens.

22 Moving on down here. Finding 8 is 

23 also related to raffinates. Refers back 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
121 

1 Finding 7. Once again, the recommendation is 

2 stay in abeyance.

3 Okay, Number 9, this is related to 

4 trace contaminants and recycled uranium and the 

5 NIOSH response was that Report 52 incorporates 

6 the latest thinking on recycled uranium and 

7 that is going to be incorporated into TBD 5.

8 However, we noted that Report 52, 

9 April 2011, does not reflect agreed-upon 

10 constituent levels from Work Group discussions 

11 on February 9th, 2012.

12 And you can see our citation of a 

13 White Paper entitled, SC&A's Response to 

14 NIOSH's Subgroup 10A Impact Analysis. And our 

15 concern is that while we reached agreement on 

16 the approach for plutonium, technetium and 

17 neptunium, that methodology has not been 

18 incorporated into the TBD so, again, we 

19 recommend keeping this in abeyance.

20 Moving down, Issue Number 10. Now, 

21 this is something that has never really come up 

22 in the Fernald discussions and the finding 

23 states that, the radionuclide list for Ru 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
122 

1 TBD is incomplete. And that's really the part 

2 that we're concerned with here and this relates 

3 to americium-241 and thorium isotopes.

4 Now, these have never been 

5 discussed in the Fernald Work Group setting. 

6 However, for the sake of completeness, we feel 

7 that they should be and that those approaches 

8 for dealing with the other nuclides that were 

9 not addressed of the others, aside from the 

10 three main ones, should somehow be incorporated 

11 into the methodology for assessing dose from 

12 recycled uranium.

13 And so we recommend keeping this 

14 open. You know, obviously we'll need to take 

15 a look at the revised TBD but at some point 

16 between now and then this would have to be 

17 addressed by NIOSH.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. Just 

19 a question here. Do you have, like, I'm not as 

20 familiar with this as maybe I should be, do you 

21 have, like, source documents that identify 

22 occurrences of thorium isotopes in americium 

23 and recycled uranium?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
123 

1 MR. STIVER: Yes. I know when we 

2 first looked at this, oh gosh, way back, 2010, 

3 2009/2010 time frame, we were looking at some 

4 documents that showed levels of various 

5 isotopes and I think it was, yes, at the bag 

6 house or some of the dust collectors.

7 And there were -- I'm trying to 

8 remember everything. Oh, there was definitely 

9 some thorium in there, cesium-137, or some 

10 other isotopes. I don't recall seeing 

11 actinium per se, but there are source documents 

12 that I would have to go back and dig up in order 

13 find that.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Are they, like, 

15 referenced in a report that you find here?

16 MR. STIVER: This is something that 

17 we would have to probably handle on a technical 

18 call since we're -- let me pull up the Site 

19 Profile Review and I can go bring up that 

20 finding and look at the exact wording. Let's 

21 see here.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm just asking 

23 because I know during the hunt for, 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
124 

1 recycled uranium and contaminants in that, it 

2 was always plutonium, neptunium and 

3 technetium. I mean that was always, those were 

4 always the ones that were considered 

5 potentially significant after --

6 MR. STIVER: Yes, remember part of 

7 the problem with thorium was that there was so 

8 much residual thorium from processing. It was 

9 not related to recycled uranium. It was really 

10 hard to try to separate the two out.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: It would not be 

12 addressed by the thorium approaches that we're 

13 dealing with?

14 MR. STIVER: It would be. That's 

15 my sense because I don't think it's possible to 

16 tease out, I'm speaking off the cuff here, tease 

17 out the component before recycled uranium 

18 compared to what was residual in the facilities 

19 from contamination and processing.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

21 MR. STIVER: There's just no way to 

22 tell because we don't have constituent levels 

23 identified in the recycled materials that were 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
125 

1 sent in.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I mean, 

3 there's no, there's no obvious mechanism for 

4 recycled uranium to have thorium in it I guess. 

5 Might be able to find one.

6 MR. STIVER: Well, there's 

7 thorium-230. You know, that kind of cleared 

8 up.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, these are --

10 MR. STIVER: And actinium, we have 

11 the same problem with that that you saw with 

12 neptunium during the, you know, breakout and 

13 metal reduction process. There might be some 

14 accumulation into that, into the mag-fluoride.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I'm still 

16 losing the mechanism for actinium -- actinium 

17 is below thorium-231 in decay chain. I mean, 

18 and you really --

19 MR. BARTON: Let me pull up --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Once you start 

21 making uranium products, there's really no 

22 thorium there anymore.

23 MR. BARTON: Yes. Let me see if 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
126 

1 can get to the finding here, pull it up. I'm 

2 having a hard time with this. Let me see if I 

3 can find these.

4 MR. STIVER: I think Bob's going to 

5 go ahead and look for that then we can just kind 

6 of move on.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, you may 

8 have, you may have reports where you reference 

9 your sources. I'm just not --

10 MR. STIVER: I apologize. This is 

11 eight years ago and it's been off my radar scope 

12 for a long time.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. My 

14 recollection was that, you know, you looked 

15 for, you know, plutonium, neptunium and 

16 technetium because for the first year or so they 

17 had to worry a little bit about ruthenium 

18 because ruthenium would come over too but --

19 (Simultaneous speaking)

20 MR. STIVER: -- decay away pretty 

21 quickly.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: So anything that's 

23 been through the separation at Hanford a year 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
127 

1 or more ago, it's those three things that were 

2 looked at.

3 Now, it's not, I just don't recall 

4 ever having to worry about americium or the 

5 other things. I mean, if it's thorium that's 

6 left over from thorium processing, I would 

7 think the thorium model is acceptable, it would 

8 deal with that.

9 MR. BARTON: Okay, let me try. Let 

10 me share this.

11 MR. STIVER: Page 54.

12 MR. BARTON: Yes. Okay, here we 

13 are, Page 53, and here's the finding in its 

14 entirety. Radionuclide list for Ru TBD is 

15 incomplete. Other radionuclides such as 

16 americium or thorium isotopes are mentioned but 

17 no data are provided. May be of considerable 

18 significance. The raffinates tend to 

19 accumulate in plutonium and other trace 

20 contaminants including thorium-230.

21 So this is something was just never 

22 run to ground I think and carried on. I would 

23 say rather than try to resolve it right now 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
128 

1 real time, we could go take a look back at some 

2 of the source documentation from this and then 

3 maybe have a technical call, so.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, this is 

5 Finding 10?

6 MR. BARTON: This is Finding Number 

7 10.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Your Site Profile 

9 Review?

10 MR. BARTON: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So who's 

12 actually got the ball on this? Is it --

13 MR. STIVER: This will be, so we 

14 need to go back and do some --

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: SC&A, okay.

16 MR. STIVER: -- some archeological 

17 digging.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I know that we 

19 discussed it but we kind of --

20 MR. STIVER: Well, we never really 

21 focused in on some of these other nuclides.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: So this is a 

23 specific raffinate stream from the recycled 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
129 

1 process? Is that what we're talking about?

2 MR. STIVER: You know --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Because it sounds 

4 like if you're talking about thorium-230 it 

5 being concentrated relative to uranium 

6 isotopes, that occurred in a raffinate.

7 MR. STIVER: Let's see. Let's 

8 continue.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: -- taking uranium 

10 out of your stock and sending it this way, 

11 what's left over is the other stuff. And so, 

12 and I was thinking in the discussion of this, 

13 that we had kind of addressed it. You know, 

14 we've adopted a relatively high ratio of 

15 plutonium and neptunium compared to production 

16 products that were observed with the 

17 expectation that the overall exposure would be 

18 bounded by the ratio --

19 MR. STIVER: See, a lot of these 

20 former issues are kind of rolled into one here, 

21 one being the concentration of the mag-fluoride 

22 which we've already addressed.

23 But the other was this idea of 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
130 

1 neptunium. Excuse me, americium-241, thorium 

2 isotopes. I'll have to go back and review our, 

3 the kind of development of the logic that went 

4 into making that finding.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, and I 

6 recognize that, you know, in a raffinate stream 

7 you've taken the uranium out --

8 MR. STIVER: Oh, yes, the raffinate 

9 stream is going to be a different situation.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: But my 

11 understanding was and it's been a long time 

12 since we talked about this, I thought that the 

13 numbers that were adopted for the contaminants, 

14 recycled contaminants were considerably higher 

15 than what's typically seen in the production 

16 uranium strains.

17 MR. STIVER: Yes, they were. 

18 Remember, it was the --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: And so there was 

20 sort of this expectation that that number will 

21 bound the --

22 MR. STIVER: Yes, for plutonium it 

23 was from that Group 10A --

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
131 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

2 MR. STIVER: -- and the really 

3 highly contaminated stuff from the gaseous 

4 diffusion plants. The question was who 

5 handled this material and when and we went 

6 through several White Paper exchanges on that 

7 before we finally came to a conclusion.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and the 

9 raffinate exposure opportunities are pretty 

10 limited compared to the uranium product 

11 exposure opportunities so those factors we 

12 thought and the selection of that high ratio I 

13 thought would take care of this. Now, maybe I 

14 read too much into that.

15 MR. STIVER: Yes. You know, let us 

16 go back and do some research on this and then, 

17 you know, if it becomes evident there are some 

18 issues still I will set up a technical call to 

19 deal with it.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: All right. Okay.

21 MR. STIVER: So we'll take that as 

22 an action.

23 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: What did 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
132 

1 call that that come from Paducah?

2 MR. STIVER: POOS.

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: POOS, that's 

4 what it was.

5 MR. STIVER: Plutonium out of 

6 specification.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that was 

8 everything that was above. You know, POOS and 

9 the feed plant ash was what they most commonly 

10 referred to --

11 (Simultaneous speaking)

12 MR. STIVER: Yes, feed plant ash 

13 was the worst.

14 MR. STIVER: Okay. Let's see. 

15 Get back here, get back to the other content. 

16 I'm trying to do this with a touch mouse pad 

17 which is really not my favorite way to do 

18 things.

19 Okay, here we go, Finding 11. 

20 Okay, this is the suggested approach for Ru 

21 dosage. Estimation, the TBD is 

22 claimant-favorable for many workers but not for 

23 all. And this is something that we have run 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
133 

1 ground. The new methodology I think addresses 

2 that.

3 The response to Finding 9 is that we 

4 keep it in abeyance until such time as we can 

5 review the TBD so I don't think we have any 

6 problems with that.

7 Uranium enrichment, this is 

8 something that was decided at the last meeting. 

9 Closure was recommended and it was, indeed, 

10 closed.

11 The next one is kind of an 

12 interesting one. This is Finding 13 and this 

13 gets way back to a time before you guys had 

14 really developed many coworker models and this 

15 was about female employees.

16 Actually 13 and 21 are related. 

17 They're two aspects of the same finding. 21 

18 relates to the external extremity, you know, 

19 shallow dose, external dose, whereas Finding 13 

20 is related more to internal intakes.

21 And this whole idea was that you had 

22 female laundry workers and they're handling 

23 highly contaminated clothing and so there's 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
134 

1 some potential for intake and so our concern 

2 was, how are you going to go about assessing 

3 that?

4 Now, the response from NIOSH is 

5 related to the external component which is 

6 Finding 21. Wait a second. I just lost it. 

7 Let me go back up a notch.

8 But our position is this finding 

9 predated the internal dose coworker models that 

10 anyone used for unmonitored workers and we 

11 recommend closure on this one. It's kind of an 

12 artifact of a previous time. Anybody else have 

13 any comments on that particular one? No.

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: This one 

15 actually came up because we had the female 

16 [identifying information redacted].

17 MR. STIVER: Yes, we talked about 

18 it at the last meeting at the teleconference and 

19 the idea was we'd take a look at the TBD and see 

20 whether or not these changes had, in fact, been 

21 implemented. And our position is, yes, they 

22 have been. We've taken a look.

23 Now, the TBD. Now, this, 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
135 

1 bit of a wrinkle here is that the discussion 

2 that NIOSH put out here is related to the 

3 external dose component but the internal dose 

4 component is also covered by the existence of 

5 coworker models so this is no longer an issue.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And this gets 

7 back to the thing of this wouldn't be considered 

8 a clerical worker or anything else like that 

9 because the other part of this with the female 

10 [identifying information redacted], they were 

11 not considered, they -- she had a result that 

12 came back high and she was not one of them that 

13 was really being monitored. It was in her 

14 yearly --

15 MR. STIVER: Yes, this would be for 

16 unmonitored female workers. That's what I 

17 think was the genesis of the whole problem.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, that's 

19 what I want to make sure.

20 MR. STIVER: Okay. So we can go 

21 ahead and let me write that in here.

22 MR. KATZ: Do you want to hear from 

23 your other Board Members before you close 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
136 

1 MR. STIVER: Somebody else out 

2 there who wants to speak up?

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Phil or Paul or 

4 Mark.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I 

6 don't have any comments other than I think this 

7 takes care of everything. The current status 

8 I think takes care of the issue so in abeyance 

9 seems to me to be appropriate.

10 MR. KATZ: This one's --

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: This one we're 

12 actually looking at closing because we feel 

13 that it's been covered.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: I thought it was in 

15 abeyance simply because you're waiting to see 

16 the final --

17 MR. STIVER: Yes, if I could kind of 

18 step in. This is Stiver. It was recommended 

19 at the April 15th teleconference to be put in 

20 abeyance so that's what the current status is 

21 over on the far right-hand column.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right.

23 MR. STIVER: And you see under 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
137 

1 red font under A29, this is we recommend going 

2 ahead and closing it out based on the research 

3 we've done since then.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I think it's 

5 appropriate to close it if we can close it now.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

7 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: This is Phil. 

8 I agree with that, let's go ahead and close it.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay, I'll go ahead 

10 and indicate that it's closed.

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Mark, I heard 

12 you in the background.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I just said I 

14 agree with that, to close it is fine.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay, thank 

16 you.

17 MR. STIVER: Okay, let me worry 

18 about details later. Let's see, 14, this is 

19 closed at the last meeting. Fifteen, this 

20 relates to ingestion doses as outlined in the 

21 TIB-9 methodology being incorporated into the 

22 internal dose TBD, which as you'll see in a lot 

23 of these findings we're recommending abeyance 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
138 

1 until such time as we review it. I don't think 

2 there's any bone of contention there.

3 Sixteen, these are some findings 

4 related to a shallow dose and our response did 

5 not fit nicely into a little box on the matrix 

6 so we added an attachment that had a more 

7 detailed description on some of these.

8 And once you see it you'll know who 

9 wrote it, let me get down here. I had asked 

10 John Mauro to take a look at this. I believe 

11 he's on the phone right now.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay, I'm off mute. 

13 Yes, I --

14 MR. STIVER: And this related to 

15 TIB-17 and the external dose, the extremity 

16 dose methodology and the implementation of 

17 TIB-17 and so forth, if you would give us like 

18 maybe your 30-second sound bite on this.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes. Could you scroll 

20 -- I reviewed nine of them so I have to get my 

21 bearings a little bit. Some of them I 

22 recommend closing and some of them I recommend 

23 keeping open.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
139 

1 If you look to the bottom of this 

2 write-up on the paginate, I just wanted to get 

3 a quick read again. I know that all of these 

4 OTIB-17 issues have been thoroughly reviewed 

5 and I cite in this write-up the history briefly 

6 of where this was addressed and also discussed 

7 during meetings.

8 I actually gave the page number of 

9 one of our meetings, relatively recent, and I 

10 believe that all issues related to this matter 

11 of these direct deposition have been resolved 

12 and the documentation for that resolution 

13 exists on Pages 42 to 52 of the February 13, 

14 2014, minutes of the Procedures Subcommittee.

15 And so on that basis and after 

16 reviewing that write-up, and because this is an 

17 overarching issue, it applies not only here but 

18 many places and I believe it now resolved, it 

19 has been resolved across the Board and the basis 

20 for that resolution, our original is, well, we 

21 have original paper on it that's cited here in 

22 this appendix and then the discussion and the 

23 agreements made are cited here in the minutes, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
140 

1 not the minutes, the transcript of that 

2 meeting, so we recommend closing this issue 

3 here.

4 MR. STIVER: Yes, John, I would 

5 like to add that, you know, these issues have 

6 been formally closed out in the Procedures 

7 Subcommittee meeting.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes.

9 MR. STIVER: And so this also 

10 applies to Issue 18, which is just virtually 

11 identical to 16. So unless there's any 

12 objections, I will go ahead and close this out.

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Any of the Board 

14 Members on the phone have any questions or --

15 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Not at this 

16 time.

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I agree, close 

19 16 and 18. Those two are the ones you're 

20 talking about, John Mauro, right?

21 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's correct, 

22 and they would be closed generically.

23 MEMBER ZIEMER: 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
141 

1 DR. MAURO: And I think that's, 

2 it's an important matter because I think we find 

3 this in many locations, including Fernald, and 

4 having the resolution of this is achieved.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Not hearing any 

6 more discussion, I will close it.

7 MR. STIVER: Okay, I'm just typing 

8 it in our response here.

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

10 MR. STIVER: Let's go back to 17. 

11 If there's enough room here for it. And, let's 

12 see here, 17, now, John, this is another one you 

13 looked at, this is about extremity dose and --

14 DR. MAURO: Right. I --

15 MR. STIVER: -- this is one where 

16 we're kind of working this through the INL Site 

17 Profile Review and some of the work that you 

18 guys are doing on extremity dose.

19 DR. MAURO: Right.

20 MR. STIVER: So let me pull up the 

21 response, the detailed response here. Yes.

22 DR. MAURO: Yes, this is, the issue 

23 of, I'll give it a 30-second sound bite so 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
142 

1 understand where we, why we're keeping it open, 

2 or recommending keeping it open.

3 There are procedures for dealing 

4 with extremity doses that have been reviewed 

5 and approved where you, well the person could 

6 either be wearing a finger or a wrist dosimeter 

7 or you could establish a relationship between 

8 the dose, let's say, that was withheld and the 

9 dose to the skin and if they're not wearing, to 

10 the skin on the hands.

11 Now what came up on INL and it might 

12 have applicability here, I think it's worthy of 

13 a little bit of discussion, is that we're 

14 finding that at least on INL there are 62, so 

15 far, counts of individuals with skin cancer on 

16 the extremities, namely the hands and the 

17 forearms.

18 So at one time we felt that this was 

19 not a major issue or an important issue because 

20 you just don't get cancer of the hand, so, of 

21 the extremities, but we're seeing skin cancer.

22 So our concern is that how are you 

23 going to calculate, estimate the dose, the beta 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
143 

1 dose to skin on the extremities for workers that 

2 you suspect, now if you understand the 

3 situation, we're working in a situation where 

4 the film badge open window, you know, the 

5 standard method of estimating the dose to skin 

6 under OTIB-17 really can't be applied to the 

7 hands if the person is working under a set of 

8 circumstances where the dose to the hands could 

9 be, especially the beta dose, could be uniquely 

10 different than what's being let out on the film 

11 badge.

12 Now there's one with regard to 

13 uranium very often what's done is you go with 

14 this 240 mR per hour direct contact, total dose, 

15 to the skin.

16 So if you're in a circumstance where 

17 you feel you had a worker that might have had 

18 direct contact with uranium, that's one way to 

19 place an upper bound on the exposure rate to the 

20 skin when in contact with uranium.

21 But this whole subject as applied to 

22 workers who have cancer of the hand, the skin 

23 on the hand, seems to me that it's still an issue 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
144 

1 that we want to keep open to hear how that's 

2 going to be dealt with.

3 We're looking at it right now on INL 

4 and seeing exactly what was done for those, you 

5 know, we had this collection of 62 cases, we're 

6 looking at all of them to see how the dose to 

7 the skin of the hand was derived for those 

8 workers because they did have that cancer and 

9 see what those protocols seem to do, a 

10 scientifically sound, claimant-favorable.

11 My recommendation is let's wait 

12 until we see what happens there before we close 

13 this and we're not far away from that. We have 

14 a draft report that I'll have in my hands 

15 probably by the end of today where all that's 

16 put together and I think what we find there and 

17 how we come out on that will have a bearing here.

18 So I'd like to hold off a little bit 

19 until we have a chance to look at, finish up on 

20 INL work.

21 MR. STIVER: Okay, thanks, John. 

22 I might add that Finding 19 is very closely 

23 related to 17 and it has, let me go down a bit 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
145 

1 farther.

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: John, this is Mark 

3 Griffon, maybe I didn't hear you, the 62 cases 

4 are they from Fernald or --

5 DR. MAURO: No. They're INL.

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, they're INL, 

7 okay, that's what I couldn't hear.

8 DR. MAURO: Well it turns out that, 

9 of course, inevitably this, you know, we just 

10 happen to be working that problem and we're 

11 almost done with it and it would have 

12 applicability.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, thanks. 

14 Thanks.

15 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: This is Phil. 

16 I got a quick question, John. Are you assuming 

17 leaded or unleaded gloves for the workers or 

18 what?

19 DR. MAURO: If we have knowledge, 

20 see here's the situation, if the person has a 

21 skin cancer on the hands, but we have 

22 affirmative evidence that he could not have 

23 gotten any exposure because he was wearing 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
146 

1 adequately protective gloves from the beta 

2 exposure.

3 You know, then, you know, that's a 

4 good question. Do we have that information and 

5 if we do have that information, do we just say 

6 well because of the wearing of the gloves that 

7 do provide, you know, will stop the betas of 

8 interest.

9 Well, does that mean that we're 

10 taking credit, credit will be taken for that and 

11 that's a reasonable thing to do except that as 

12 you know very often when it comes to respiratory 

13 protection, no credit is given to that.

14 So I don't know if we had that 

15 conversation yet with NIOSH, and please remind 

16 if we have, but when a person does have cancer 

17 of the skin of the hands and he had a job where 

18 he was, you know, his hands were in close 

19 proximity to a beta source, but you do have 

20 reason to believe that his skin was protected 

21 because of the gloves or of the glove box and 

22 the handling was such that it would not allow 

23 that exposure to occur.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
147 

1 Am I correct that you would assume 

2 zero exposure under those circumstances?

3 MR. BARTON: John, this is --

4 DR. MAURO: By the way this is one 

5 things we're looking for and looking at when we 

6 look at these cases at INL.

7 MR. BARTON: Yes, John, this is Bob

8 Barton and as you know I was looking at a lot 

9 of those dose reconstructions for INL and it was 

10 pretty much standard practice. If the cancer 

11 was on the forearm or the hands, I don't believe 

12 I came across any cases where any sort of 

13 protection factor was used.

14 Now if it was upper arm, shoulder, 

15 something like that, you know, there would be 

16 an attenuation factor of somewhere in the 80 

17 percent range.

18 But I think it's, I mean we haven't 

19 specifically looked at Fernald dose 

20 reconstructions for extremities. I know we 

21 put together a list of how many we found, but 

22 I probably assume and, Mark, maybe you can weigh 

23 in on this, I mean usually there's no assumption 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
148 

1 of wearing lead gloves or anything of that 

2 nature.

3 MR. ROLFES: Yes, definitely not at 

4 Fernald. I mean leather gloves possibly, but 

5 there were always issues, too, with 

6 contamination of the leather gloves early on.

7 In the 1950's they had concerns 

8 about reusing them just because of the 

9 materials getting ingrained in the gloves and 

10 delivering dose to people's hands, but, yes, 

11 comparing apples and oranges, talking about 

12 lead gloves and glove boxes at places like INL 

13 versus a place like Fernald where it's 

14 completely different.

15 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think one thing 

16 we need to keep in mind is this is, you're 

17 looking at an overarching issue when it was 

18 identified, you know, eight years ago for 

19 Fernald, but certainly being addressed in other 

20 venues as well.

21 And that's the reason why, you know, 

22 INL is under way right now, this is going to be 

23 a good vehicle by which we can kind of look at 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
149 

1 then really try to address the whole idea of the 

2 beta dose changes and geometry factors and so 

3 forth that might impinge on these extremity 

4 doses.

5 And that's kind of what we're 

6 looking at in finding 19, which is kind of the 

7 other side to 17, which John had just discussed, 

8 and basically the same response is given by 

9 NIOSH.

10 The TIB-13 and geometric exposure 

11 is another consideration for external dose 

12 reconstructions at uranium facilities is being 

13 used to correct the geometry, first, kind of a, 

14 I don't know I'd say an off-normal or situations 

15 like in this particular finding we're talking 

16 about thorium handling where the, you know, the 

17 beta and gamma dose contributions are a bit 

18 different than it would be for uranium 

19 handling.

20 And we once again recommended that 

21 this issue be kept open pending our 

22 investigations at INL because that's really 

23 where we're kind of getting a handle on how 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
150 

1 beta dose components are going to be adjusted 

2 for a dosimeter reading to account for 

3 geometric correction.

4 And so once again we recommend 

5 keeping this open until such time as we have an 

6 opportunity to finalize the INL studies.

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: This is Brad. 

8 I don't have any problem with that, but I want 

9 to have it clarified. Now this is between the 

10 badge and badge reading and what?

11 MR. STIVER: This would be the 

12 source to the badge reading. If you have a 

13 badge you're wearing on your chest for example 

14 and you're working in a glove box or you're

15 handling uranium or thorium materials and 

16 you're getting beta dose to your extremities, 

17 your fingers, your hands, forearms, what not.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

19 MR. STIVER: How then would you 

20 adjust that film badge reading that was worn on 

21 the chest to account for what the exposure was 

22 actually, you're actually experiencing on the 

23 extremity and that's really what this is all 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
151 

1 about.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

3 MR. STIVER: Now TIB-13 addresses 

4 correction factors for photon exposure, for 

5 gamma exposures, but not for beta exposures for 

6 electrons, and so the INL work is kind of, you 

7 know, we said INL is kind of the vehicle by which 

8 we're kind of examining this overarching issue.

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Now I 

10 know. I just wanted to have a better idea of 

11 what we were looking at on this because -- okay, 

12 any of the other Board Members have any problems 

13 with keeping these open or any questions? Not 

14 hearing any, we'll continue on.

15 MR. STIVER: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: You know, one 

17 thing that comes to me though is when we're 

18 working in a contaminated area like this they 

19 have us bag our TLDs so that we can keep it on 

20 the outer part of that and that's the --

21 MR. STIVER: You know, I think that 

22 was one of the things that was discussed in 

23 TIB-13, in the Procedures Subcommittee 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
152 

1 discussions on TIB-13 was, you know, how would 

2 you account for bagging and so forth and --

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

4 MR. STIVER: -- other attenuating 

5 materials between the source and the film 

6 badge.

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

8 MR. STIVER: And that would 

9 obviously be a lot more important for beta 

10 exposure, but, yes, that is.

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right.

12 MR. STIVER: Is Hans Behling still 

13 on the phone?

14 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I am.

15 MR. STIVER: Hans, would you like 

16 to talk about 20, Issue 20?

17 DR. BEHLING: Okay. Let's see, 

18 this particular finding was correction factors 

19 used in the initial period of use of TLD at 

20 Fernald and I find it to be appropriate.

21 And if I recall what was initially 

22 criticized about that was the timing of the use 

23 of the Panasonic 802 for TLD badge. Initially 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
153 

1 it was identified as being introduced in 1985.

2 The second issue was the correction 

3 factor associated with the change in the 

4 algorithm that initially involved an algorithm 

5 developed on fatal nitrous back in '82 and would 

6 subsequently found to be inadequate in 

7 addressing issues related to the beta component 

8 that was essentially an algorithm established 

9 later on.

10 Those two, looking at the revised 

11 version of TBD involving Chapter 6, have been 

12 corrected, so those two issues that were 

13 initially identified are now essentially 

14 resolved.

15 There was, however, a third one 

16 which was not necessarily addressed and that 

17 was the issue of correction factors associated 

18 with contamination found on the badges and that 

19 involved a time frame that involved somewhere 

20 around 1985 when Westinghouse identified this 

21 problem and corrected film badge you got on your 

22 TLD badges that were subject to degradation of 

23 contamination and what they in essence did 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
154 

1 to use a series of badges, contaminated them 

2 with known quantities of activity and then 

3 assess the response due to the contamination 

4 alone.

5 Now to establish correction factors 

6 you need, not only to understand what the 

7 contribution of doses based on the activity of 

8 contamination level, but also the time frame.

9 So what they in essence did was to 

10 do the following, they had received some 

11 calibration codes that said so much activity on 

12 a badge will introduce an incremental dose rate 

13 that will be assigned to the badge that would 

14 be fraudulently assumed as occupational 

15 exposure.

16 However, another component is the 

17 time duration during which the contamination 

18 sits on a badge and here is where I get some 

19 questions raised and the model that NIOSH used 

20 to affect that correction factor was to do the 

21 following.

22 If you have let's say contamination 

23 of 1000 dpm for a badge of material that might 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
155 

1 contribute to the dose you have to also 

2 understand how long was that contamination 

3 there.

4 And what was done was to, in 

5 essence, identify the date of the, issue of the 

6 badge and the date of the readout and then if, 

7 let's assume it was exactly one month and you 

8 issued a badge to the person on the first of the 

9 month and at the end of the month, approximately 

10 30, 31 days, you treat the badge and you read 

11 it out.

12 So you have obviously an unknown and 

13 that is when was the badge contaminated and the 

14 assumption here is the amount of, what's the use 

15 of it, where it point, and assume that that 

16 contamination that you observe at the time that 

17 the badge was turned in for readout was 

18 approximately halfway, so 15 days.

19 When you do that apparently it was 

20 found that some badges using that model would 

21 actually end up with a negative value, meaning 

22 that the person had not zero exposure, but less 

23 than zero exposure, which would suggest 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
156 

1 the assumption was that perhaps the badge was 

2 contaminated on day one and therefore the 

3 actual duration of the contaminate adding dose 

4 to the TLD was in fact 30 or 31 days as opposed 

5 to 15 days and that would account for the 

6 negative values.

7 I looked at this particular issue 

8 and realized that well this is basically the 

9 problem that we face on many other issues, 

10 whether it's the LOD over 2 for admit dose on 

11 the dosimeter or TLD or in the case of a bioassay 

12 when we take MDA over 2.

13 And I realized that this is an issue 

14 that cannot really be resolved. You have to 

15 accept the fact that when you do this particular 

16 type of presumption that there will be 

17 instances where you will obviously subtract 

18 more than what's necessary, in other cases you 

19 give more.

20 And so this limitation of the system 

21 and it's why I'm concerned it's part of the way 

22 we do business here at NIOSH and I don't see any 

23 resolution to 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
157 

1 So as far as I'm concerned the 

2 Finding Number 20 should be resolved and as far 

3 as I'm concerned there's no need to continue 

4 this discussion.

5 MR. STIVER: Brad?

6 DR. BEHLING: Any questions?

7 (Simultaneous speaking)

8 DR. BEHLING: How many?

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I have a lot of 

10 questions, Hans, but I understand the gist of 

11 where you're going. I don't see anything else 

12 but to --

13 MR. STIVER: I think it needs to be 

14 closed out.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: -- close it, so 

16 other Board Members any problems with closing 

17 this one?

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, I agree. I 

19 think it's the only thing you can do. It's a 

20 reasonable approach.

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Correct.

22 DR. BEHLING: And I would assume 

23 that no one's ever going to be assigned 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
158 

1 negative number anyway, so what in essence, you 

2 would be shortchanged.

3 What, in instance where you have 

4 negative numbers that would suggest that the 

5 person wasn't exposed to anything and the 

6 subtraction ends up giving you the negative 

7 number and, in essence, you would be 

8 essentially shortchanged 50 percent of that 

9 value that has been subtracted much like when 

10 you get, when you have a film badge and the LOD 

11 is 40 millirem the truth is the person could've 

12 had 39 and in other words he could've been 

13 shortchanged 14 millirem.

14 On the other hand it could've been 

15 that the person really didn't have any in which 

16 case he had the benefit of getting the 

17 assignment of 20 millirem. That's just the way 

18 the system works and I think we just have to 

19 accept that.

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Thank 

21 you, Hans. Any other Board Members have 

22 anything? If not we'll go ahead and close that 

23 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
159 

1 MR. STIVER: Okay. Twenty-one was 

2 the other side of the story regarding the female 

3 employees' exposures to external sources and we 

4 went ahead and took a look, this is one that we 

5 put in abeyance back on April 15th based on our 

6 review of the external dose TBD.

7 And we did take a look at that and 

8 confirm that the NIOSH statements that missed 

9 dose is no longer used to assign unmonitored 

10 external dose and that the 500 millirem upper 

11 bound dose methodology has been removed.

12 We also note that Section 6.6.2 of 

13 the TBD -- those refer to OTIB-17 and so for the 

14 same reasons that we discussed earlier 

15 regarding Issues 16 and 18 and also Number 13, 

16 we recommend that this issue be closed.

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Any of the Board 

18 Members have an objection to that or any 

19 questions?

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: No objection, I 

21 agree. Ziemer.

22 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Not 

23 hearing any more, we'll go ahead and close 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
160 

1 MR. STIVER: Okay. Now the next 

2 three I believe are related to atmospheric 

3 fugitive emissions and intermittent-type 

4 exposures in limited areas and I had asked John 

5 Mauro to look into this because he has done a 

6 lot of work in this regard.

7 Again, a lot of it related to INL. 

8 So, John, I've got Finding 22 up here.

9 DR. MAURO: Yes.

10 MR. STIVER: This is a source term 

11 for atmospheric uranium emissions is 

12 significantly underestimated.

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, let's scroll down, 

14 I'm reading it just to refresh my memory again 

15 on this Finding 22 in the Appendix.

16 MR. STIVER: Okay.

17 DR. MAURO: I see you have it on the 

18 screen.

19 MR. STIVER: Let me make it a little 

20 bigger for you here.

21 DR. MAURO: And that goes on, I just 

22 want to get my bearings again. Okay, let's 

23 just take a look. 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
161 

1 MR. STIVER: It just kind of lays 

2 out the background.

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, the history of 

4 this thing.

5 MR. STIVER: Okay. Right here is 

6 the gist of it right there.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, gist, right. 

8 Bear with me a minute.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay. Ah, yes, the 

11 Clark issue, I got it, okay, thank you.

12 MR. STIVER: Okay.

13 DR. MAURO: I just needed to 

14 remember the essence of the issue. Originally 

15 the source terms were estimated. There was a 

16 number of studies on emissions and this goes way 

17 back to findings back in maybe 2005 where the 

18 source term that was provided, it was defended 

19 in the write-up and there was a, but a question 

20 came up, did you look at the work done by this 

21 fellow Clark, et al, 1989, the citation, and at 

22 that time that was not reviewed.

23 And the possibility that his work 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
162 

1 could've shown that the emissions, airborne 

2 emissions of uranium may have been higher than 

3 what was used.

4 I checked Clark and the work there 

5 and also the current write-up for environmental 

6 exposures and what source terms were used and 

7 it turns out that the source term that is 

8 currently used for uranium emissions from 

9 stacks, some big number, 300, right there it is 

10 308,000, is substantially larger than the 

11 estimate that Clark made.

12 So we concluded that the issue as 

13 originally raised there is no issue here 

14 because the source term that NIOSH is using from 

15 its source documents where it references, is 

16 higher than what Clark estimated, so we're 

17 recommending this issue to be closed.

18 MR. STIVER: Now, John, you have a 

19 nice, interesting postscript of this finding, 

20 too, I mean kind of a whole other, a notion of 

21 using the uranium bioassay coworker models 

22 instead of atmospheric dispersion model and to 

23 assign doses of this sort.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
163 

1 DR. MAURO: Yes.

2 MR. STIVER: But anyway, it's kind 

3 of interesting and I know that this kind of 

4 impinges on the radon doses that we'll be 

5 discussing, too, is that, well, radon's kind of 

6 a different animal, obviously, but, you know, 

7 this isn't -- let's separate the radon issue 

8 from this uranium issue. All I'm saying here 

9 is that, you know, right now we have a 

10 circumstance where most workers, the vast 

11 majority of workers at Fernald have bioassay 

12 data and if they worked for a National Lab as 

13 a prime contractor, you know, we have the data, 

14 we have the wherewithal to reconstruct the 

15 doses since most of them have bioassay data, and 

16 for those few that don't, you could build a 

17 coworker model with the exception, of course, 

18 for subcontractors.

19 Now we have a circumstance here that 

20 says well, what about outdoors where you have, 

21 perhaps you have workers outdoors where you 

22 want to reconstruct their doses if they don't 

23 have bioassay data and what I'm saying here 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
164 

1 that when you look at the current, I call it the 

2 2014 version of the Site Profile, there's a very 

3 well developed description of, given the source 

4 term of this 310,000 kilograms total, I think 

5 they have it by year and perhaps by building.

6 In my opinion, given that source 

7 term and given that you have meteorological 

8 data, you should be in a position to reconstruct 

9 doses if you have to resort to the atmospheric 

10 transport model and its associated atmospheric 

11 dispersion factor as inhalation.

12 The tools are there to do that if it 

13 comes to that, but where you do have a worker 

14 that does not have bioassay data and if you need 

15 to go to this protocol, I believe the protocol, 

16 as laid out in the current version of the Site 

17 Profile, the 2014 version, you know, it's 

18 scientifically sound and claimant-favorable.

19 So this was not an issue that was 

20 specifically raised here, you know, in this 

21 whatever number we're on right now, but I 

22 thought I would just point that out because I 

23 can see someone asking that question and 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
165 

1 looking at the, just from reading the Site 

2 Profile and looking at this section on 

3 environmental, I felt the section was strong.

4 The source term was good, that was 

5 the original concern, but not only is the source 

6 term good but the protocols for how they would 

7 go about dealing with reconstructing those 

8 outdoor exposures can be done.

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Thank you, 

10 John.

11 DR. MAURO: For uranium. This 

12 question of radon is going to be a different one 

13 that we'll talk about later.

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I understand. 

15 Thank you, John. Board members on the phone, 

16 any questions?

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Not at this time.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

19 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: No questions, 

20 sounds good.

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

22 MR. STIVER: Close?

23 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: It's closed 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
166 

1 then. Looking at the time on this I think we 

2 ought to break for lunch.

3 MR. STIVER: It's probably a good 

4 break point.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And we'll 

6 continue this up at --

7 MR. KATZ: An hour?

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: In an hour, one 

9 o'clock.

10 MR. KATZ: One o'clock.

11 MR. STIVER: No objections.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: No objections?

13 MR. KATZ: So on break till one. 

14 Thank you everybody and we'll reconnect the 

15 phone then.

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Thank you.

17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

18 matter went off the record at 11:59 a.m. and 

19 resumed at 1:04 p.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
167 

1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N

2 (1:05 p.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: We're just waiting for 

4 Stu to join us, but everyone else is in the room. 

5 Let me just check on line while we're waiting. 

6 Do I have Paul and Mark, and Phil?

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, Ted, this is 

8 Paul. And before we move in to -- I have to 

9 [identifying information redacted] at 1:30 

10 p.m. So, I'll have to bail out early.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay, 1:30 p.m. And, 

12 Phil, are you on too? Did I hear you? I think 

13 I heard Mark, right?

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, Ted, I'm 

15 here.

16 MR. KATZ: Great. Phil, are you 

17 on? Okay. Well, we're waiting for Stu 

18 anyway.

19 (Off microphone comments)

20 MR. KATZ: Okay, we have Stu back. 

21 I think we're ready to go. Let me just check 

22 again. Phil, are you on the line? Okay, not 

23 Phil yet. But we've got, Stu, we've got Paul 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
168 

1 on the line, as well as Mark.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Where are we at? 

4 We're at 23?

5 MR. STIVER: Yes. We finished up 

6 22, and we're just starting Item 23. Let me 

7 know when you guys are ready.

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. I'm 

9 ready.

10 MR. STIVER: Okay. This is 

11 another one related to environmental 

12 monitoring. Actually, excuse me, 

13 environmental dose calculations using Gaussian 

14 atmospheric dispersion modeling

15 And the finding, you know, back in 

16 2006 was that the TBD has not adequately 

17 considered various aspects of internal 

18 environmental dose, including applicability of 

19 the Gaussian model, episodic releases and 

20 particle size.

21 NIOSH's response was that the 

22 environmental TBD revisions do indeed use a 

23 standard annualized Gaussian model, including 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
169 

1 assumptions regarding atmospheric, I'm just 

2 going to read the entirety of it here, 

3 stability, and that it is claimant favorable. 

4 In addition, short term episodic releases are 

5 modeled using the puff modeling, so the 

6 continuous release model.

7 And they also have factored into 

8 account for a respirable fraction of particles. 

9 And we had recommended closure, based on our 

10 review done a couple of weeks ago. And the 

11 reason being, we did take a look at the 

12 environmental TBD.

13 Basically Table 4.6 of the 2014 

14 cycle file provides examples of six significant 

15 episodic releases. These occurred over a 

16 period of about, of less than a day.

17 And these were the ones that, some 

18 that were of concern to us in our original 

19 review. Equation 4.7, the atmospheric 

20 diffusion equation, is going to be used to model 

21 dispersion factors for these releases.

22 It was taken from Slade 1968, 

23 recognized as one of the seminal documents 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
170 

1 atomic energy and meteorology.

2 So, the bottom line is that the 

3 model does specifically take into 

4 consideration the things we're concerned 

5 about, wind speed, direction, stability, 

6 class, the time of the release and use 

7 conservative parameter values.

8 And so, in summary, we believe that 

9 the TBD revision is fully responsive to our 

10 original concerns. And we recommend closing 

11 this finding out.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Board Members 

13 have any comments or questions on this before 

14 we proceed on?

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: I concur. This is 

16 Ziemer.

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

18 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, I'm okay 

19 with that.

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

22 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Phil, are you 

23 with us yet? Well, I don't see a problem 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
171 

1 that. So, we'll go ahead --

2 MR. STIVER: Okay.

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: -- and close 

4 that out.

5 MR. STIVER: Twenty-four. This 

6 finding states diffuse emissions of uranium and 

7 thorium may have produced significant internal 

8 exposure for some personnel.

9 This topic had not been previously 

10 discussed in any of the 17 Work Group meetings 

11 that have transpired since then. We recommend 

12 keeping this finding open as a topic of 

13 discussion.

14 NIOSH responds that, basically the 

15 same response they had to Finding 22. They 

16 basically say, the stack effluence for the 

17 operational period identified releases of 

18 thorium, uranium emerged from building exhaust 

19 waste pits, UF6 releases from storage 

20 containers, and six specifically identified 

21 off normal events. But they're not aware of 

22 any other significant additional sources.

23 And I had John Mauro look at this. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
172 

1 And he went through Section, a perfect Section 

2 5.7.3 of the original review. And our concern 

3 was that at the time the Site Profile addressed 

4 the diffuse emissions from the waste pits, but 

5 not potentially important sources of deferred 

6 diffuse emissions, many of which were described 

7 in our review at the time.

8 Some of those are listed here on our 

9 response, on Page 39. There's four in 

10 particular. One was the outside Williams 

11 Mill, Breaking Salt at outside mill, shoveling 

12 onto conveyor belt, the conveyor at the outside 

13 mill, and the changing drums at the outside 

14 mill.

15 And each of these list general air 

16 breathing zones, air concentrations in terms of 

17 maximum allowable concentrations. And so, we 

18 felt that the TBD might benefit from taking a 

19 look at some of these kind of off normal events 

20 that we identified.

21 We realize that they're separate 

22 from episodic releases, because they're highly 

23 localized ground level releases that can'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
173 

1 easily modeled. So, we proposed doing an upper 

2 bound estimate, localized airborne 

3 concentrations. Example being the bulleted 

4 items that we have.

5 And of course, this is only going to 

6 apply to workers who are not on a routine 

7 bioassay program for the radionuclides of 

8 interest, and that are not covered by the SEC. 

9 Let me take a look, read down here a little bit 

10 further. Okay.

11 Now, as far as being able to place 

12 people at particular locations regarding, in 

13 relation to these short term releases, and so 

14 forth, we realize that they might have the 

15 granularity in the days that they actually do 

16 this. However, we thought that we should leave 

17 this open and give NIOSH a chance to respond, 

18 and maybe, you know, take a look into it 

19 themselves, and come back with a proposal of 

20 their own.

21 MR. ROLFES: For uranium 

22 exposures, I mean, any exposure to an 

23 individual that's performing such a task, their 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
174 

1 uranium urinalysis results will obviously 

2 reflect any routine exposures or intermittent 

3 exposures that they might have had in these 

4 higher air concentration areas. We're not 

5 going to be reconstructing thorium intakes 

6 because of the SEC.

7 MR. STIVER: Right.

8 MR. ROLFES: I don't know how much 

9 more we can do on something such as this.

10 MR. STIVER: Yes. You know, our 

11 response to Finding 22 is kind of along those 

12 lines too, you know, that we feel that the 

13 coworker model is the way to go in doing this. 

14 So, because we have the coworker model at that 

15 time, and haven't even begun, we haven't even 

16 discovered the data.

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Will this one 

18 basically be tied into the coworker data? I 

19 mean --

20 MR. STIVER: Yes, basically.

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: -- coworker 

22 model?

23 MR. STIVER: It's kind of, you 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
175 

1 know, off normal occurrences that, you know, at 

2 the time would have had to have been modeled. 

3 But this is at the time before you had the, had 

4 developed the uranium coworker model.

5 And, you know, we put that kind of 

6 addendum to Finding 22, that we recommend that, 

7 you know, in a situation like this that, you 

8 know, the preferred course would be to go ahead 

9 and just use the coworker model, because of the 

10 uncertainties considered in trying to model 

11 this kind of exposure.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, this 

13 would actually be tied in with the --

14 MR. STIVER: Yes. These are all 

15 kind of combined, 23 through 24 are similar. 

16 So the bottom line is I think we can probably 

17 go ahead and close this one out.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Pending the 

19 coworker model evaluation? Is that --

20 MR. STIVER: Oh, the coworker 

21 model. Well, we're talking about uranium 

22 coworker model, which is already under 

23 discussion.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
176 

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

2 MR. STIVER: Except for the, 

3 obviously the subcontractors.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: So then, your 

5 recommendation is that this can be closed 

6 because of the coworker model? Because that --

7 MR. STIVER: No --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: -- was my thought. 

9 I mean --

10 MR. STIVER: Yes. I mean, the 

11 coworker model's really going to be the whole 

12 standard for this --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: These were 

14 episodic --

15 MR. STIVER: -- kind of thing.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- exposures of 

17 people working with radiological materials. 

18 And so, they're either going to be monitored, 

19 or they'd be covered by the coworker.

20 MR. STIVER: Yes, yes.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: The coworker 

22 approach.

23 MR. STIVER: Yes. I think, 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
177 

1 know, at the time, you know, step back eight 

2 years and, you know, we are faced with having 

3 to model, is kind of --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. All right.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So, your 

6 recommendation is to close, correct?

7 MR. STIVER: Yes, close.

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Other Board 

9 Members, any questions on that?

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. This is 

11 Ziemer. I just wanted to clarify, John Mauro, 

12 are you okay on that?

13 MR. STIVER: Yes, I had talked to 

14 John earlier. He's at another meeting right 

15 now.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay.

17 MR. STIVER: So he can't jump in. 

18 But he's all right with that.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, good. Yes. 

20 It makes sense to me, yes. I'm good.

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Mark?

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, the same, I'm 

23 good. I'm good on 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
178 

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Phil, 

2 are you there, or on mute? So, okay. Well 

3 we'll close that one then.

4 MR. STIVER: Okay. The next is 

5 related to radon modeling from the K-65 silos. 

6 Actually, 25 and 26 kind of subsume into SEC 

7 Issue 5, which had been the topic of a lot of 

8 discussion several years ago.

9 And Hans Behling is prepared to talk 

10 about this. He did the lion's share of our 

11 work. Produced, I believe, three White Papers 

12 that were exchanged with NIOSH, back in 2011. 

13 So, Hans, are you on board here?

14 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I am.

15 MR. STIVER: Okay.

16 DR. BEHLING: Let me just briefly 

17 recount what the issue in Finding 25 was 

18 originally. It was, again, based on the 

19 questions of radon modeling. But it really 

20 addressed the, kind of the two values, and fully 

21 accepted the actual release rates of 5,000 to 

22 6,000 curies from the K-65 silos.

23 So, at this point I think it was John 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
179 

1 Stiver had mentioned we want to really focus on 

2 another issue that relates to this issue. And, 

3 as a matter of record, I just want to say, I was 

4 not involved in the original findings that 

5 involved the TBD review.

6 But back in 2007 I was asked to 

7 review the SEC Petition and NIOSH's Evaluation 

8 Report. And I looked at a number of issues. 

9 Among those was the radon releases from the K-65 

10 silos, which mostly involved data that was 

11 reported by the Radiation Assessment 

12 Corporation. Refer to RAC Report of 1995.

13 And I came up with a very, very 

14 different conclusion. And I just wanted to 

15 just briefly review some of the things that I 

16 reported in behalf of my review of the SEC 

17 Petition.

18 And what I looked at was, in 

19 essence, the data that was presented by the RAC 

20 Report. And I just wanted to make a comment 

21 here, that it's not my opinion, but by and large 

22 reflects what was reported in the RAC Report.

23 And I wanted to state very privately 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
180 

1 that the estimates that were presented by the 

2 RAC 1955 Report were based purely on the model 

3 for which the most basic model parameters, that 

4 is, the diffusion coefficient and the radon 

5 emanation fraction were really unknown. And 

6 they were really based on various assumptions 

7 that really could not be confirmed.

8 And the principled assumption was 

9 that the radon that was released from the weight 

10 package that represented the disequilibrium 

11 between radon 226 and lead 210 was really radon 

12 that escaped from the waste package into the 

13 head space, decayed in the head space with very 

14 little being released.

15 And the serious deficiency of the 

16 RAC model is that the head space radon would, 

17 in fact, be mostly retained within the silo, and 

18 ignored the whole issue of many of the 

19 penetrations that were subject to radon 

20 leakage, as well as the Venturi Effect, which 

21 I then discussed in a couple of the White 

22 Papers.

23 As a result of that initial review 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
181 

1 of the data that I had available to myself, I 

2 came to the conclusion that the radon releases 

3 from the K-65 silos in combination would 

4 release approximately 100,000 curies per year, 

5 which is almost a factor of 20-fold difference 

6 from the 5,000 to 6,000 curies that were 

7 projected to be released, based on the RAC 

8 model.

9 And let me just briefly go over what 

10 that -- or what my model really entails. I 

11 looked at the release of radon based on the 

12 disequilibrium back in 1991. This is now 

13 almost 40 years after the waste package was 

14 introduced into silos.

15 And for Silo Number 1 the radon 226 

16 activity was based on 525 picocuries per gram. 

17 And the lead 210 activity in Silo 1 was 194,000 

18 picocuries. And that, by and large, 

19 translates to a ratio between lead 210 and radon 

20 226 of 0.37.

21 That would suggest that in the 

22 absence of a full equilibrium you had something 

23 in the order of 63 percent of the radon 222 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
182 

1 leaving the waste package. And very similar 

2 values were identified for Silo 2, 417,000 

3 picocuries for radon 226 and 160 picocuries per 

4 gram for lead 210. And again, the 

5 disequilibrium there was suggestive of 

6 approximately 62 percent of the radon leaving 

7 the waste package.

8 Now, the question is, where did it 

9 go? And this is where I essentially came to the 

10 understanding that it is probably all vented to 

11 the atmosphere. Also in that calculation I 

12 concluded, on the basis of disequilibrium, that 

13 approximately 88,000 curies per year were 

14 vented from Silo 1, and about 23,400 curies per 

15 year were vented by Silo 2.

16 And as a result of my modeling of 

17 releases, there was significant question about 

18 whether or not I was right or wrong. And I was 

19 asked to write a White Paper that was issued 

20 back in 2008. And that White Paper pretty much 

21 explained a lot of the issues that I was not 

22 willing to put into the original report.

23 Also, because there was a lot of 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
183 

1 additional information I was able to assemble. 

2 And to put my claim of these kinds of annual 

3 releases from the K-65 silos. When that White 

4 Paper was reviewed by NIOSH they did not really 

5 discredit anything, in terms of technical.

6 But, they by and large, in October 

7 of 2008, concluded that the numbers were not 

8 subject to technical criticism. But dismissed 

9 my White Paper on the basis that that report had 

10 not been subject to a National Academy of 

11 Science review. And therefore, they would 

12 stick with the RAC model that, in fact, was 

13 reviewed.

14 I believe during that very meeting, 

15 I think it was Dr. Ziemer who said, well then, 

16 let's find out what the National Academy of 

17 Science has to say about the 1995 RAC model, and 

18 if in fact that concurs with NIOSH's assumption 

19 that that should be the model we should go with.

20 Well, that was the genesis of my 

21 second White Paper, which regurgitated pretty 

22 much what I said in the first. But also added 

23 a significant amount of information that, among 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
184 

1 other things, discredited the notion that the 

2 National Academy of Science in fact endorsed 

3 the 1995 RAC model.

4 And, not to belabor that issue, I 

5 also added a lot of additional information. I 

6 point to the RAC model and the excessively type 

7 information that was cited in the RAC model. 

8 And, granted, you can read the two White Papers, 

9 because there's an awful lot of information.

10 But let me get down to the real 

11 issues that, at this point, supports my 

12 contention. And on that issue I would hope 

13 that, John, you can introduce the Table J-19 

14 from Appendix J of the RAC 1995 Report. I 

15 included that as Exhibit 5 in my 2010 White 

16 Paper.

17 MR. STIVER: The 2010 White Paper?

18 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

19 MR. STIVER: Okay. Let me pull 

20 that up.

21 DR. BEHLING: Table J-19 from 

22 Appendix -- It's Exhibit Number 5 on Page 19 of 

23 the development section.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
185 

1 MR. STIVER: Let me find it here. 

2 Okay. Okay, Hans, I'm on Page 19. Can you see 

3 that?

4 DR. BEHLING: Well, actually 

5 that's not the one I have. I'm not sure whether 

6 that is the --

7 MR. STIVER: Okay. Hang on to 

8 this. It may not be the one.

9 DR. BEHLING: That may be, that's 

10 the 2008 White Paper.

11 MR. STIVER: Let me check. This is 

12 called "The Second White Paper".

13 DR. BEHLING: Okay. But --

14 MR. STIVER: Yes, this --

15 DR. BEHLING: Let me see. Hold on. 

16 It's the table that, let me see, maybe I used 

17 the wrong -- I introduced that table twice, 

18 both in the White Paper, as well as, the first 

19 White Paper as well as the second paper.

20 MR. STIVER: Okay. Table J-19, 

21 Exhibit 5. Let's go down here.

22 DR. BEHLING: In the first White 

23 Paper, John, it's on Page 10. And if you have 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
186 

1 the 2008 White Paper, it's on Page 10.

2 MR. STIVER: I'm trying to find it 

3 here. According to your Table of Contents, 

4 it's on Page 19. Okay. I've got to go down. 

5 I'm not -- I was looking on Page 19 of the PDF. 

6 Oh, here we are. Here we are. Okay, Hans, 

7 we're on it.

8 DR. BEHLING: Yes, okay. This is 

9 really the crux of everything. And it's 

10 relatively easy to understand. And it comes, 

11 of all things, from the RAC 1995 Report. So, 

12 it is something that I can't understand why the 

13 people from the RAC group, who compiled these 

14 data, didn't realize that they were essentially 

15 in conflict with their own data.

16 So, let me explain what's in that 

17 report. First of all, if you look at the top 

18 it has two sets of data that, one, involves, 

19 prior to the sealing of the silo openings that 

20 pre-date 1980, okay.

21 So, this is the first sets of data. 

22 And what these data represent on dose rates, 

23 standing on top of the silos, Silos 1 and Silo 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
187 

1 2. And the reason in 1980 they felt compelled 

2 to seal the dome, there was a huge six inch 

3 gooseneck opening, and huge numbers of fissures 

4 that was just barely able to release anything 

5 that was in the head space.

6 And as a result of the high dose 

7 rates that made it unacceptable for workers to 

8 be up there for doing anything, they decide to 

9 seal the domes in 1980. And so, we have dose 

10 rates that pre-date 1980 and post-date 1980.

11 So, let's go look at the data. The 

12 very first entries was in April 1964. It was 

13 Silo Number 1. And the contact reading on 

14 that, at that time, was 75 millirem, okay. In 

15 March of '72, eight years later, again there was 

16 a contact reading of 75 millirem.

17 However, the footnote under which 

18 silo it is, it says it's NF. It doesn't 

19 indicate which one. But it could have been 1 

20 or 2. But their, at that time the dose rate 

21 reading on top of the dome was 30, and so forth. 

22 Again, it's a very, very low dose rate reading.

23 On the fourth entry, identified by 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
188 

1 May 1973, again Silo 1. So you have a nine year 

2 time interval. The contact reading on top of 

3 Silo 1 was 65 to 90 millirem. The entry below 

4 that now is in May of '73. And this involves 

5 Silo Number 2. And the dose rate at that time 

6 was between 70 and 75 millirem, okay.

7 So we have, by and large, data that 

8 involved the dose rates on top of Silos 1 and 

9 2, pre 1980, that suggest dose rates somewhere 

10 between 60 or 75 millirem per hour, with the 

11 dose rate on top of either one of those silos.

12 And then you have in late 1979 a 

13 strong effort to seal all the cracks, remove 

14 that six inch gooseneck, and everything else 

15 that might have potentially allowed the radon 

16 to escape.

17 And what would happen, as you would 

18 expect, if the radon in fact that had emanated 

19 from the waste package into the head space, you 

20 would obviously see a rapid and significant 

21 increase in the dose rates, based on the 

22 presence of the radon that was now captured in 

23 the head space, the radon daughters.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
189 

1 And so, when you go now to the second 

2 half, actually not quite the second half, where 

3 it says, after sealing silo openings, you have 

4 April 1980, Silo 1, the contact reading went to 

5 250 millirem per hour. In other words, more 

6 than a three-fold increase from the previous 

7 readings that date back to April '64 or May of 

8 1973, okay.

9 Below that you have again, in April 

10 1990 Silo 2, a contact reading that at that time 

11 after the resealing and then the repair was 

12 done, raises the dose rate on top of the domes 

13 to 200 to 250 millirem.

14 So we have, in essence, 

15 approximately a three-fold increase between 

16 the time frame prior to 1980, post 1980, in 

17 terms of the dose rate on top of the dome. And 

18 that had to be, obviously, due to the fact that 

19 the radon that was previously released into the 

20 environment had now entered the head space. 

21 And basically, at least for the most part, was 

22 retained in the head space, and gave rise to the 

23 increase in dose rate.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
190 

1 So now, let's go down towards the 

2 bottom. I'm trying to quickly look and see 

3 when this issue came to pass. But, there was 

4 a time when again, the radon had to be released, 

5 based on the issue of concerns. And let me just 

6 briefly, quickly find out where that is.

7 Okay. When you look at the bottom 

8 four entries that occurred in 1987, at the very 

9 top, on top of the four, last one, you have 

10 November 1987. You have, again, on Silo, on 

11 top of Silo 1 a contact reading that was 160 to 

12 208 millirem. And again, that's considered a 

13 baseline.

14 Right below that, the same date, top 

15 of Silo 1, there was another contact reading 

16 that resulted in a dose rate of 35.5 to 68 

17 millirem. However, that occurred after the 

18 operation of the radon treatment system, as you 

19 see on the right hand side, for an average value 

20 of about 65 millirem, okay.

21 This is very important, okay. The 

22 next two entries involve, again, November 1987. 

23 But this one now is on top of Silo Number 2. And 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
191 

1 you have, in the second to the last entry, a 

2 measured dose rate of 221 to 250 millirem, with 

3 an average of 232 millirem per hour.

4 Below that is the same location, but 

5 it is now after the radon treatment system was 

6 operated, that reduced the dose rate from 60 to 

7 76, for an average of 68. And what I want to 

8 point out here now is that, before the radon 

9 treatment system goes into being, it by and 

10 large mimics the dose rates that were measured 

11 early in 1980 after the sealing of the dome.

12 On the other hand, if you look at the 

13 radon treatment system readings that reduced it 

14 by more than three-fold, you have almost the 

15 identical dose rates that pre-date 1980, 

16 without the radon treatment.

17 And let me just tell you what the 

18 radon treatment, how it was used. The radon 

19 treatment system was operated on one silo at a 

20 time, with a flow rate of about 1,000 cubic feet 

21 per minute. And was operated until radiation 

22 levels on top of the silo dome surface stopped 

23 decreasing. And that basically said, 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
192 

1 eliminated all of the radon and their 

2 short-lived daughters.

3 And when you see this data, there is 

4 no, there's an inescapable understanding that 

5 the pre 1980 dose rates on top of the dome 

6 reflect a situation where the radon is not 

7 collected in the head space, but was directly 

8 vented out.

9 And based on my calculation that 

10 turns out to be about, between Silo 1 and 2, 

11 about 100,000 curies per year, and not 5,000 to 

12 6,000 as modeled by the RAC Committee, using 

13 various questionable parameters.

14 And on that basis I stand my ground 

15 in saying that the release rates that have been 

16 modeled into the environmental radon releases 

17 for the silos 65 1 and 2, are probably a factor 

18 of 20-fold off.

19 And like I said, if you want to 

20 understand something, you have to understand 

21 one thing. When there is a disequilibrium that 

22 somehow or other cannot account for somewhere 

23 around 67 percent of the radon that 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
193 

1 been held in the waste package, along with its 

2 short-lived daughters, and you say, where can 

3 it go? Where can it go?

4 And the answer is, it can go in one 

5 of two things. It can diffuse to the 

6 periphery, and even be released from the site 

7 of the silo. Or it can migrate, as it most 

8 likely would, to the head space.

9 But if it's in the head space and it 

10 stays there, it's held there, you would see, in 

11 essence, a dose rate pre-1980 that would have 

12 been the same post-1980. But it wasn't. And 

13 the difference being, it can only be accounted 

14 for by release of the radon from the waste 

15 package into the environment.

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Hans, this is 

17 Brad. Let me just make sure I understand what 

18 you're telling me into this. For what you're 

19 saying is, before they sealed up the K-65 silos, 

20 and the radon was able to escape, that these 

21 figures are off, correct?

22 DR. BEHLING: That is correct.

23 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: This is the RAC 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
194 

1 Report. And I understand this. And I just 

2 want to make sure that that was where we were 

3 at on it. Because, once they sealed that up, 

4 then the corrective action was to turn a fan 

5 onto it, and pull all this out of the head space, 

6 correct?

7 DR. BEHLING: Well, I don't know. 

8 When they pulled it out of the head space, they 

9 might have actually filtered it through a 

10 charcoal filter, meaning that they might have 

11 reduced the radon releases into the environment 

12 by capturing it in a charcoal filter, along with 

13 the short-lived daughters.

14 So, I'm not saying that post 1980 

15 the release of the radon by way of the radon 

16 treatment system would have been vented into 

17 the environment.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right, yes. 

19 That's true. I understand what you're saying 

20 on that one.

21 DR. BEHLING: My contention, Brad, 

22 is that prior to 1980 the RAC model, which 

23 identifies 5,000 to 6,000 curies per year is 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
195 

1 correct.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I understand. 

3 Mark or Paul, do you have any questions on this?

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, I'm 

5 actually curious if NIOSH has a response to 

6 Hans' assertion.

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

8 MR. ROLFES: We discussed -- This 

9 is Mark Rolfes, Mark. And we discussed this 

10 quite a bit back, you know, six years ago. And 

11 I know Hans and I yelled at each other. My 

12 opinion is that we shouldn't be using external 

13 dose rate measurements to characterize the 

14 quantities of radon gas being released from the 

15 head space.

16 We both issued White Papers, you 

17 know, supporting our own opinions. And we had 

18 developed a best estimate approach that 

19 indicated that the 5,000 to 6,000 curies being 

20 released per year by the RAC study was actually 

21 much less than that, by a factor of 

22 approximately ten.

23 Hans' White Paper, based upon 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
196 

1 external dose rate measurements conducted on 

2 the outside of the silos, you know, he believes 

3 that it's a factor of 20 higher than the RAC 

4 study. So, we've got, you know, one paper in 

5 the middle, a better estimate that's much 

6 below, and another estimate that's much above.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, let's find 

8 out some things here. You know, we had some 

9 institutional interest in, you know, the RAC 

10 Report was also adopted essentially by the 

11 Pinney Report, right?

12 MR. ROLFES: Correct.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, they're 

14 essentially the same number. And so --

15 DR. BEHLING: Yes, that's correct.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: And Penny was a 

17 NIOSH sponsored report. So there was some sort 

18 of institutional interest, you know, in the 

19 Penny report. Now, having said that, you know, 

20 we, for the purpose of this program, the purpose 

21 to make sure we're bounding, we have departed 

22 from the way NIOSH has done things in other 

23 fashions, in other arenas, because 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
197 

1 nature of this being a compensation program as 

2 opposed to those other programs.

3 So, I think there's some food for 

4 thought here. Hans, I wanted to ask you just 

5 real briefly, if you can explain briefly, how 

6 did you arrive at your estimate of the radon 

7 emission of 80,000 and 20,000 curies per year?

8 I assume this is for the period from 

9 the time the silo was built up until the 

10 openings were closed, or sealed up in like '79. 

11 Or that would be one release rate.

12 DR. BEHLING: Okay.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: That's the release 

14 rate. Okay.

15 DR. BEHLING: I assumed that the 

16 disequilibrium that was measured in 1991 was 

17 probably disequilibrium that had existed 

18 pretty much throughout the time frame when the 

19 13,000 drums were being emptied into Silo 1 and 

20 2. And there's no reason not to.

21 It's reasonably conservative, if 

22 not just reasonably intuitive to conclude that 

23 this disequilibrium existed, okay. 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
198 

1 fact, when I hear you say, oh, dose rate, well, 

2 the dose rate is not due to radon. But if the 

3 radon, short-lived radon daughters can escape, 

4 I must certainly have to conclude that radon as 

5 a gas will equally escape.

6 So, I will not buy on the issue that 

7 the dose rate measurements in itself serve as 

8 an indicator for something that involves radon, 

9 and it may not be correct.

10 My conclusion is this, if anything, 

11 the short-lived radon daughters would, if they 

12 escape they certainly will allow the radon as 

13 a gas to escape, okay. Because, as short-lived 

14 daughters they may even attach themselves to a 

15 dust particle, and stick to the inside wall 

16 where they're stuck to decay.

17 And that apparently does not seem to 

18 be the case when you look at those dose rate 

19 measurements that I just showed you. So, if 

20 the dose rates are not an indicator of the fate 

21 of radon, then I don't know what is. Because

22 I do stick by my guns in saying, if the dose 

23 rate's reduced, that means the radon also 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
199 

1 escaped.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So then, 

3 back to my original question about the 100,000, 

4 or the 80,000 and 20,000 release rate, that's 

5 based on the total amount of radium in the silos 

6 and --

7 DR. BEHLING: Yes. And I adjusted 

8 it even for -- Because when the radon treatment 

9 system went into effect, they must have taken 

10 measurements and said that there is still a 

11 three percent retention of short-lived 

12 daughters. So, I even adjusted for that.

13 And I did this, again, on my White 

14 Paper on Page 14. This is my November 2008 

15 White Paper, on Page 14 and 15. I go through 

16 the actual calculations that gave rise to my 

17 understanding that the number of curies that's 

18 released from Silo 1 and 2 were about 82,000 and 

19 23,000 respectively, curies per year from each 

20 of those. And total is somewhere around 100 

21 and some odd, 110,000 curies.

22 I will go somewhere above 100,000 

23 curies per year, is my best estimate as to 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
200 

1 escaped from the head space into the 

2 environment during those years prior to 1980.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: And that's 

4 basically, mainly on the disequilibrium 

5 between the radium and lead 212 in the 1991 

6 samples?

7 DR. BEHLING: Yes. And how do you 

8 account for that?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes.

10 DR. BEHLING: If you start, and 

11 understand that this waste was introduced in 

12 the early '50s, and these disequilibrium values

13 were measured in 1991 and again in 1992. Now, 

14 there was nearly 40 years of time lapse between 

15 the time that the raffinate wastes were 

16 introduced in Silos 1 and 2. And of course, 

17 lead 210 has a 22 year half-life.

18 So one could say, okay, there was 

19 some ingrowth made. But the truth is, I don't 

20 believe there's any reason to believe that this 

21 disequilibrium did not also exist beforehand. 

22 Because if the radon can escape from the silos, 

23 it most likely can easily escape from 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
201 

1 packaged drums.

2 So, it's possible that this 

3 disequilibrium basically existed beforehand, 

4 and continued unabated throughout that 40 year 

5 time frame, that period while it was packaged 

6 in the silos. And those are my, you can go 

7 through my White Paper.

8 And I had to make a couple of basic 

9 assumptions. But they were very reasonable. 

10 And so, it is, it might be based on the 

11 disequilibrium and the need to identify the 

12 fate of the radon that is accountable by the 

13 disequilibrium, and where does it go?

14 If it's in the head space, as was 

15 always, or I was told it all decayed in the head 

16 space. But the data I've just shown to you in 

17 Exhibit 5 seems to contradict that assumption, 

18 that it does not decay in the head space, but 

19 it was rather vented out. Because the dose 

20 rates before and after 1982 rose sharply by a 

21 factor of three.

22 But when the radon treatment system 

23 was kicked in, it basically reduced the dose 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 rate levels prior to 1980, meaning that the 

2 radon has to have been escaping during that time 

3 frame.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, I'm 

5 going to think about --

6 DR. BEHLING: This is a clear cut 

7 case.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: And we have been 

9 thinking about thorium and coworker bioassay 

10 for the last, you know, year on this. And I 

11 haven't really picked this back up. But I 

12 would like to go re-read Hans' and our 

13 proposals, if that's okay with the Work Group?

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes, that's, 

15 well, that's been one we've been dealing with 

16 for a long time.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: And realistically, 

18 this is a matter of, what's the number? This 

19 isn't, can you do it? This is what's the 

20 number.

21 So, this is a site profile issue. 

22 But let's wrap the thing up while we're talking 

23 about 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
203 

1 MR. STIVER: Right.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: And so, there's 

3 some, you know, there's some compelling 

4 arguments, you know. Hans made some 

5 compelling arguments. There are 

6 complications that probably perturbed us more 

7 than we would like.

8 But I would like to actually take 

9 some time to just read through the whole of both 

10 our argument, our estimate, Hans' estimate, and 

11 see what we can say about is there something we 

12 can come up with here that seems acceptable in 

13 both realms?

14 Six years ago I probably was a 

15 proponent of, you know, NIOSH has endorsed this 

16 number in the Penny Report, we should stay with 

17 that, you know. I think I probably was a 

18 proponent of that six years ago. I don't know 

19 that we need to do that anymore.

20 I mean, we've, like I've said, for 

21 a compensation program you do certain things 

22 that maybe you, you know, certainly the health 

23 effects reconstructors didn't do. So, 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
204 

1 we can take a look at this. And I would like 

2 the opportunity to form a judgment. And then 

3 I'll have additional discussions.

4 If it comes down to it, we can have 

5 a technical call, and just kind of go through

6 this. But I'd like to reserve this one for 

7 myself, since I can talk about the site.

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Any 

9 thoughts to --

10 MR. ROLFES: Since you were on site 

11 at this time period, do you ever recall having 

12 2,000 or 3,000 curies of radon being released 

13 from the silo on any given day?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we didn't 

15 measure radon directly. I mean, there were 

16 radon monitoring stations that were passive. 

17 So, you would collect the monitoring device and 

18 get integrated exposure for the exposure for 

19 their deployment period.

20 And there were some radon, I mean, 

21 periodically, you know, very infrequently 

22 there would be radon fluence metrics with 

23 charcoal canisters, where you would then take 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
205 

1 fluence rate through, you know, that much area 

2 of the dome. And again, that's passive. 

3 You'd leave it in place, you'd collect it, and 

4 you'd estimate the fluence rate for this 

5 deployment period.

6 I remember that it was 

7 significantly different if there was a crack 

8 under your canister, as opposed to a solid piece 

9 of concrete, it was way different, which 

10 doesn't, which is not surprising.

11 But, you know, the numbers, I don't 

12 know that at the time that we were estimating 

13 emission rates from these concentration values 

14 that were measured. Or, there may have been an 

15 emission rate estimated from the fluence rates.

16 But I don't know exactly how they'd 

17 do that. Because, how much area does your 

18 crack take up, you know? Or, I guess you could 

19 do a length of crack thing. I don't remember 

20 if that was done at all. So, I don't know. 

21 Three thousand curies a day seems like a lot. 

22 But I'd have to go back and do some reading.

23 MR. ROLFES: I think we discussed 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
206 

1 some of these issues. I know on the internal 

2 dose, Report 52, Internal Dosimetry Issues. I 

3 think for Fernald, I mean, this has been 

4 something that we've discussed quite a bit. 

5 So, there are some measurements, like you said. 

6 And some employees from Mound, someone by the 

7 name of Jenkins, I believe, had come down and

8 done some charcoal studies.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. They did 

10 some charcoal studies. And I think Mound 

11 deployed the first passive monitors on PERMs, 

12 passive monitor, radon monitor.

13 MR. STIVER: Yes, on PERMs.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: And so, I don't 

15 remember actually a daily emission rate being 

16 calculated.

17 MR. ARNO: I've got a question. 

18 Were these silos maintained at atmospheric 

19 pressure? Or were they negative --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: No they were --

21 MR. ARNO: -- on the outside?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: They were 

23 atmospheric.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
207 

1 MR. ARNO: Okay.

2 DR. BEHLING: And this is a 

3 comment. That is really the whole basis by 

4 which the RAC model operated. It in essence 

5 said that there was a diurnal variation in 

6 ambient temperature, which would then under, 

7 reduce temperature or elevated temperature, 

8 cause the head space in the silo to exhale a 

9 certain amount.

10 So, it was based on diffusion 

11 constants and certain pressure differentials, 

12 diurnal pressure differentials, based on the 

13 heating effect, solar heating effect of the 

14 silos. And those are very questionable 

15 models. And if you read my White Paper, I go 

16 into great detail in analyzing what they did, 

17 and some the deficiencies in their assumption.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the diurnal 

19 variation is, that in fact was true. The radon 

20 level was always higher at night than it was in 

21 the daytime.

22 DR. BEHLING: Yes. And, of 

23 course, I would expect that, to a large extent 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
208 

1 that whatever was released might have been 

2 released slightly higher during those time 

3 periods. But I also make a major issue out of 

4 the Venturi effect.

5 When you look at the dome, and it's 

6 a round, semi hemispherical shape, when you 

7 have a passing wind over it you have what's 

8 called the Venturi effect, that by and large 

9 leaves the entire head space very quickly.

10 And they did not, they understood 

11 that. But in one of their discussion points in 

12 1995 RAC model they said, we will not account 

13 for that. And I believe that's really a 

14 dominant means by which the head space was 

15 vented.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's, I think 

17 the physics of it is really complicated. I 

18 think you're right, the Venturi, I'm not 

19 doubting Venturi effect would contribute. I'm 

20 confident there was this, I mean, there's just 

21 too much observation of various kinds of data 

22 to say that this diurnal pumping didn't occur. 

23 And I'm pretty confident that did occur.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
209 

1 But, I think that, well again, I'd 

2 just like to go back and carefully read the 

3 arguments, our arguments and your arguments, 

4 and see if I can't sort this out a little bit.

5 Because I, it was pretty clear when 

6 radon treatment systems that were ran, whether 

7 it was just makeshift one that they were running 

8 that's referred to here, or the permanent one 

9 that was running before the remediation of the 

10 silos. When you turn those on you did 

11 significantly decrease the direct exposure 

12 reading from those domes, from the silos. 

13 That's a fact.

14 So, since you do that, you have to 

15 conclude that some fraction of the radiation 

16 dose you're reading on the surface is due to 

17 head space radon decay problem.

18 DR. BEHLING: Well, I would 

19 question that. Because obviously the waste 

20 package in itself contained significant 

21 amounts. So that when you turn on the radon 

22 system you exhaust all the head space, that 60 

23 to 70 millirem per hour, which is the same 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
210 

1 the dose rate readings before 1980, was all 

2 likely due to radioactivity in the waste 

3 package that still obviously penetrated the 

4 dome, and gave you those approximately 70 

5 millirem per hour dose rate readings. And so 

6 --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I thought 

8 that's what I said.

9 DR. BEHLING: -- we're not talking 

10 about residual. I just believe that when you 

11 ventilate just about everything out, using the 

12 radon treatment system. And you're left with 

13 approximately 70 millirem of residual baseline 

14 radioactive dose rates, I mean, dose rates. 

15 That dose rate reflects a contamination that 

16 was in the waste package, not in the head space.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I thought that's 

18 what I said.

19 MR. STIVER: Yes, yes. Hans, I 

20 think that is what Stu said. I think it might 

21 have just been some --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I may have not said 

23 it very well. The other issue about, 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
211 

1 two-thirds of the, or the lead 212 being only

2 a third of the total of the radium total, and 

3 therefore, two-thirds of the radon that were 

4 generated had to leave, that assumes that 

5 two-thirds of the radon had to get out of the 

6 residues into the head space.

7 Because it has to be from the head 

8 space. I mean, there's no doubt that, you 

9 know, some fraction, I don't know what 

10 fraction. But you've got these residues that 

11 were what, 18 feet deep, roughly?

12 MR. STIVER: Ninety something 

13 percent water.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And were 

15 wet. That it's a, you know, a pretty good 

16 fraction of the radium is not going to leave the 

17 residue just physically. And we don't really 

18 know what the diffusion constant, you know, 

19 what Hans said. You don't really know what the 

20 diffusion constants are.

21 But just as a practical matter, you 

22 really expect 60, you know, two-thirds or 63 

23 percent of the radon to even get out 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
212 

1 residue into the head space, which then raises 

2 a question, why the hell did the analytical 

3 results turn out the way they did.

4 DR. BEHLING: Well, I can only say, 

5 with the disequilibrium between radon 226 and 

6 lead 210. And those are empirical 

7 measurements --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

9 DR. BEHLING: -- done in 1991 and 

10 '92.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I know.

12 DR. BEHLING: And they both show 

13 that disequilibrium. So, if the radon did not 

14 escape the waste package, how do you account for 

15 the 63 millirem of lead 210? I don't see how 

16 you can draw any other conclusion that that 

17 disequilibrium is so strong that the release 

18 and removal of radon 222.

19 MR. ROLFES: Hans, this is Mark. 

20 One other thing I think we discussed is, you 

21 know, my speculation that they could have done 

22 some attempts to recover lead 210 out of the 

23 materials for the production of polonium, 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
213 

1 know.

2 So that could have created a 

3 disequilibrium I guess, prior to the materials 

4 being loaded into the silos at Fernald, when the 

5 material came from Mallinckrodt. This would 

6 have fit in the time period that Monsanto was 

7 doing research with the production of polonium 

8 210 as well, late '40s. But I was --

9 DR. BEHLING: Well, I will dismiss 

10 that issue too. Because of this, these 

11 materials were loaded into the silos in the 

12 '50s, okay, early '50s. This disequilibrium 

13 measurement was discovered in the early '90s. 

14 That's a 40 year difference. That's almost a 

15 two-fold time frame of the half-life of lead 

16 210.

17 In other words, you would have had 

18 a reestablishment of equilibrium with no radon 

19 escaping of approximately 75 percent. And so, 

20 I'm not going to accept that as an explanation, 

21 that they may have removed all the lead 210. It 

22 wouldn't add up just on that basis. If they 

23 removed 100 percent of the lead 210, 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
214 

1 have had an ingrowth of up 75 percent at the time 

2 that these measurements were taken, if no radon 

3 escaped.

4 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: This is Phil. 

5 Why would they have even bothered removing the 

6 lead if they were just going to store it in these 

7 silos?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: That would have 

9 been done, Phil, that would have been done at 

10 Mallinckrodt, because Mallinckrodt was 

11 experimenting with production of polonium for, 

12 I guess for initiators, right. So they were 

13 trying to extract things from the raffinate. 

14 And they may have extracted the lead 212 in 

15 there, as what they, in their work there. You 

16 know, trying --

17 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Oh, okay.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to reclaim some 

19 materials from the raffinate. That would 

20 have been, that happened at Mallinckrodt before 

21 these materials came to Fernald.

22 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, you know, 

23 I think we could discuss this a lot more. 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
215 

1 bottom line is, as you've asked, you want to be 

2 able to look at this in a little bit closer 

3 detail. Plus, we're looking at it a little bit 

4 different than what we were previously. We 

5 were looking at this as an SEC. This is a Site 

6 Profile issue, and when we get to it --

7 So, my suggestion, and Board 

8 Members, and if anybody has any disagreement, 

9 is that we give NIOSH an opportunity to review 

10 this. And I don't know if it will come in a 

11 White Paper form. I'm sure it probably will. 

12 But, reevaluate this, and then we'll get back 

13 with it. Is that okay with the Board Members?

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. That sounds 

15 great.

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Is that okay 

17 with --

18 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: It's a 

19 reasonable approach.

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Is that 

21 all right with you too, Hans?

22 DR. BEHLING: Well, I guess I'm 

23 waiting. I just hope one more time 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
216 

1 they'll look at my report, and assess it 

2 technically. And not dismiss it because it 

3 wasn't reviewed by the National Academy of 

4 Science.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, crap. You 

6 want me to assess it technically? Oh, man.

7 MR. STIVER: Yes, here we go, yes.

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. I 

9 appreciate that, Hans. So, we'll --

10 DR. BEHLING: I'm being cynical, I 

11 admit. I'm used to waiting.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: That's okay. I 

13 was being a smartass.

14 MR. STIVER: Stu, do you have any 

15 idea about the time frame we'll be looking at 

16 here?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, right now I'm 

18 really interested in it. And so, I could do it, 

19 you know --

20 MR. STIVER: Strike while the 

21 iron's hot?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- without too much 

23 -- I'd have to read 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
217 

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Maybe you'd 

2 take this off on your vacation, and --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I just took my 

4 vacation. And believe me, my wife would not 

5 let me take this on my vacation.

6 MR. STIVER: Yes.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, beyond just 

8 reading Hans' papers and our papers, certainly 

9 we're going to have some internal discussions 

10 on this as well. So, I would think, I can shoot 

11 for a couple of months, maybe.

12 MR. KATZ: Which is when we're 

13 planning for our next meeting.

14 MR. STIVER: That's about the time 

15 for our next meeting anyway, yes, about two 

16 months.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We're 

18 planning a meeting in a couple of months. 

19 Well, if we're going to plan for a meeting in 

20 a couple of months, then that gives me something

21 to shoot for, to try and get something out in 

22 advance of a next meeting, in order to at least 

23 have something to talk about.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
218 

1 MR. KATZ: Yes.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Give me something 

3 to shoot for.

4 MR. KATZ: Because SC&A will 

5 complete their coworker model review at the 

6 same time. So we're shooting for, I think 

7 November, early December, right?

8 MR. STIVER: Yes. That sounds 

9 about right.

10 MR. STIVER: Ballpark.

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes.

12 MR. STIVER: Brad should be back 

13 from his exploits by then.

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. I'm 

15 spending my birthday here with you guys.

16 MR. STIVER: Some fish stories. 

17 Some great fish stories.

18 MR. KATZ: Good stories though.

19 MR. STIVER: New ones.

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. There, 

21 you put that stipulation on me. Oh, I see. 

22 Okay. Well, we'll look forward to that.

23 MEMBER GRIFFON: Watch it, Brad, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
219 

1 you're getting to be an old man.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes, I know it. 

3 I know it. Hit the big 5-7 today. Well --

4 MR. STIVER: You're remarkably 

5 well preserved for the big 5-7 I would say.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. So, we'll 

7 wait for that. And you want to proceed on, or 

8 --

9 MR. STIVER: Could we take a five 

10 minute break here?

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I was going to 

12 suggest that, but I thought I was the only wimp. 

13 We're going to take a ten minute comfort break 

14 if we could, if that's all right with everybody? 

15 Not hearing any objections.

16 MR. KATZ: So, it's 2:02 p.m. right 

17 now on my computer. Ten minutes.

18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

19 matter went off the record at 2:02 p.m. and 

20 resumed at 2:13 p.m.)

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. All right, we're 

22 back. We're even --

23 MR. STIVER: Everybody back and 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
220 

1 the --

2 MR. KATZ: -- a minute early. 

3 Uncharacteristic. Is, I think Paul we 

4 probably lost. He was going to leave about a 

5 half an hour ago. But we have you back on line, 

6 Phil?

7 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, you do.

8 MR. KATZ: Great. And Mark? Mark 

9 are you back on --

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm here.

11 MR. KATZ: Oh, great. Super. 

12 Okay. Let's carry on.

13 MR. STIVER: Do we have John Mauro 

14 back?

15 DR. MAURO: Yes, I rejoined you.

16 MR. STIVER: Oh, okay. The next 

17 one was Issue Number 27. This is one that John 

18 looked into as well, and provided a detailed 

19 response, which I'm going to give to you right 

20 now.

21 DR. BEHLING: John, this is Hans. 

22 Are we skipping Item 26?

23 MR. STIVER: Actually, 25 and 26, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
221 

1 and SEC Issue 5 were all kind of rolled into the 

2 same can, if you will.

3 DR. BEHLING: I know that, you 

4 know, the issue of the K-65 silos do play a part 

5 here. But, okay. If you choose to do that, 

6 then --

7 MR. STIVER: Well, hang on just a 

8 second. I just lost my file here. Hold on. 

9 Yes, Hans, the pitchblende ore on site in Plant 

10 1, I believe if memory serves, that NIOSH has 

11 rolled that into their model, you know, into 

12 another source for radon release.

13 And we talked about it at several of 

14 the Work Group meetings. But if you've 

15 prepared a response to that particular issue 

16 you'd like to share with us, that would be fine.

17 DR. BEHLING: Okay. It's very 

18 brief. At least the original Finding 26 really 

19 addressed the problems associated with the 211 

20 ores, and the fact that they had not at that time 

21 taken full consideration of what the release 

22 rates were as defined by Pinney and Horning 2006 

23 and other 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
222 

1 And I believe that has subsequently 

2 been incorporated into the revision of the TBD. 

3 Now, again, the only issue here is that, related 

4 to what we just talked about regarding the K-65 

5 silos, are part of that. But the essential 

6 concerns that were raised back in 2006 have been 

7 addressed.

8 MR. STIVER: Okay. So, in 

9 essence, you're recommending closing that one 

10 particular aspect of it?

11 DR. BEHLING: Yes. It's not that 

12 the K-65 silo issues that we just mentioned in 

13 behalf of Finding Number 25. It's not part of 

14 this. But at least the original concern was 

15 raised back in 2006, when the Richman SC&A 

16 reviewed the TBD. That has been addressed. 

17 Except that it did not address the issue of the 

18 K-65 silo release quantities.

19 MR. STIVER: Okay. Well, I guess 

20 --

21 DR. BEHLING: So, if we resolve the 

22 K-65 issue, then that component of Finding 

23 Number 26 will also be resolved.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
223 

1 MR. STIVER: Right. Okay. So, 

2 for that particular aspect of it then we can 

3 recommend closure.

4 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

5 MR. STIVER: No objections to that?

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: No. Thank you, 

7 Hans.

8 MR. STIVER: Okay, John, you want 

9 to go ahead and go with Issue 27 here?

10 DR. MAURO: Twenty-seven, okay. 

11 Twenty-seven is --

12 MR. STIVER: This is outdoor 

13 diffuse emissions in production areas as a 

14 source of external environmental dose. Let me 

15 pull up the response here.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes.

17 MR. STIVER: Okay. This is 

18 related to external environmental dose, aside 

19 from that from the K-65 silo.

20 DR. MAURO: Right.

21 MR. STIVER: And then Issue 28 

22 looks at the K-65 silos separate from the other 

23 sources.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
224 

1 DR. MAURO: Right. We're talking 

2 about external exposures, and yes, I have a 

3 write up here. And we'll go to the, the bottom 

4 line is you have these external exposure 

5 contour maps for 1976 to '85. And also a 

6 section, there's in the Site Profile. And also 

7 Section 4.5.4 presents onsite ambient dose rate 

8 estimates from '52 to '75.

9 MR. STIVER: Right.

10 DR. MAURO: They provide a protocol 

11 to use this information to estimate external 

12 exposure. So, in other words, they do it, the 

13 new Site Profile does explicitly address, 

14 approach the data, and the approach to 

15 reconstruct these outdoor exposures.

16 And a lot of information is there. 

17 I read through it all. And my last paragraph, 

18 and the attachment basically summarizes my 

19 findings regarding that data, and the whole 

20 approach, which taken in its entirety it 

21 appears the new profile provides the guidance 

22 to estimate external exposures outdoors from 

23 all sources stored on site. And residual 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
225 

1 radioactivity at the site, okay.

2 And so, we recommend that this issue 

3 be closed, with one proviso, that a statement 

4 be made in the Site Profile itself regarding, 

5 this goes back to the skin exposures, 

6 constructed in accordance with OTIB-17, and 

7 what we discussed earlier about localized 

8 doses.

9 So, in other words, my takeaway from 

10 this is that the techniques, the data and the 

11 techniques as described in the Site Profile 

12 will allow you to reconstruct external 

13 exposures outdoors, certainly photon 

14 exposures.

15 But I didn't see any language that 

16 discussed that they will be adopting OTIB-17 

17 protocols, as further elaborated on in the 

18 agreements made during the Work Group meeting 

19 on this matter of direct contamination. So, 

20 that was the only --

21 Also, I'm recommending we close 

22 this. But I think it might be a good idea to 

23 have some language in the, at some point 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
226 

1 process, that says that they will, NIOSH will 

2 be using OTIB-17 as interpreted, and as further 

3 developed in the agreements made at that last 

4 Subcommittee meeting regarding direct 

5 deposition.

6 MR. STIVER: Anybody else have 

7 anything to add on that? Or can we go ahead and 

8 close that out?

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Any other Board 

10 Members on the phone have any questions? Not 

11 hearing any, we'll close that one.

12 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I'm just 

13 assuming that NIOSH is agreeable to those 

14 conditions that John talked about. Is that 

15 correct?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe so. I'd 

17 have to --

18 MR. ROLFES: I don't know what they 

19 are.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I'd have to go back 

21 and refresh my memory. At this point I don't 

22 object to that. If we find that we don't, for 

23 some reason we don't think that's right, we'll 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
227 

1 let everybody know. But, if you don't hear 

2 from us --

3 DR. MAURO: I can help out a little 

4 bit with this.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

6 DR. MAURO: The idea being, 

7 certainly external photon exposures, given the 

8 protocol that you've laid out, and the data you 

9 have in the contours, and you have, you know, 

10 you were going to place a person in theory at 

11 some location for some time period.

12 You could certainly reconstruct 

13 external exposure, because of this residual 

14 activity that's either in soil, or that's in 

15 locations where there's a radiation field being 

16 created. And there's information from TLD 

17 measurements, for example, of what those fields 

18 are.

19 What's not there is the external 

20 exposure to skin, and how that is going to be 

21 dealt with, but which has been addressed in 

22 other venues, and agreed to. But not 

23 specifically here in this Site Profile, as best 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
228 

1 I can tell.

2 So, what my understanding is that 

3 your plan will be, that when you encounter a 

4 person who has a skin cancer, and you're 

5 reconstructing his external doses, and he's 

6 outdoors, that, you know, you'll use, of course 

7 you'll use the method you describe.

8 But in addition, if it's a skin 

9 cancer you will be taking into consideration 

10 the beta dose to the skin that might be 

11 associated with direct deposition.

12 Under the, and there are, there's 

13 quite a bit of discussion on under what 

14 circumstances that's done, when there's 

15 affirmative evidence that yes, there might have 

16 been a problem, where there could have been 

17 direct deposition on the skin. That needs to 

18 be taken into consideration.

19 And then once you, you know, once 

20 that determination is made, and that's a 

21 judgment call based on where the guy's located, 

22 and the circumstances under which he's been 

23 operating. A judgment call is made whether 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
229 

1 direct deposition scenario applies.

2 And that's all laid out very nicely, 

3 and discussed in other documents and other 

4 meetings, how you make that judgment. And then 

5 once that judgment is made, the procedures for 

6 doing that dose reconstructions will localize 

7 deposition, are all agreed upon on how that 

8 would be done.

9 And I don't want to get into details 

10 about that, because it's been written up in a 

11 number of locations. And it has been discussed 

12 relatively recently at the Subcommittee 

13 meeting.

14 But certainly take a look at it, see 

15 if you're comfortable with all that. But 

16 that's the only proviso I make. Sort of like 

17 adding a little bit more richness to the section 

18 you have right now.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I don't 

20 foresee any issue with it.

21 MR. STIVER: I don't think there's 

22 going to be a problem. Okay. I guess we can 

23 move on to Issue 28. And this is related 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
230 

1 external environmental dose for workers near 

2 the K-65 silos.

3 Basically the one element that was 

4 taken out of Issue 27, presumably because it was 

5 more of a gamma dose issue, and not necessarily 

6 related to a dose from deposition from betas, 

7 from shallow dose considerations.

8 The original findings, the TBD is 

9 silent on how external doses to workers on the 

10 silos were derived. The persons that may have 

11 spent time in the area of Fernald containment 

12 silos. This is a particular concern for the 

13 early years, before additional shielding was 

14 provided for the silos. And also a concern for 

15 those unmonitored workers who may have taken 

16 breaks near the silos.

17 And NIOSH's response was that the 

18 external environmental TBD in Revision 2014 

19 addresses the issue of external environmental 

20 dose to persons near the K-65 silos. And we 

21 went back and took a closer look. And, much as 

22 John described for Issue 27, we found that the 

23 -

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
231 

1 Hang on just a second. Let me pull 

2 this back up. That the TBD provides a very 

3 thorough discussion and methodology for 

4 calculating the external doses, the 

5 environmental doses for personnel in this 

6 particular situation.

7 From 1976 to 2005 the ambient 

8 radiation associated with the silos and the 

9 production plants is based on TLD measurements 

10 that were taken at various locations, both on 

11 site and at the fenceline boundary.

12 And that prior to 1976 there's a 

13 modeling of average direct dose rates at the 

14 fenceline, based on a combination of historic 

15 data from the radiation levels, and the 

16 application of measured dose rate values.

17 And I guess in summary, what we can 

18 say is that the Site Profile is, the guidance 

19 that's provided there, is certainly adequate to 

20 reconstruct external exposures from the silos. 

21 And we recommend closing this issue out.

22 DR. BEHLING: John, this is Hans. 

23 I looked at it too. I guess I wasn't sure 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
232 

1 whether you were going to respond, or I was 

2 going to respond. But I come away with 

3 slightly different feelings about that.

4 Because the Finding Number 28, as it 

5 was originally offered back in 2006, really 

6 talks about very close proximity to the silos. 

7 Not the fenceline, but very close. And if I can 

8 look at the actual statement in the current TBD 

9 regarding that, it does talk about measurable 

10 levels.

11 And I'll quote here. The 

12 measurable level as measured by Juno survey 

13 meters in 1963 was interpreted to be an exposure 

14 rate of 30 millirem at three feet, one meter 

15 from north and south silos, a total of 60 

16 millirem per hour at three feet from the tanks.

17 Anyways, those numbers don't agree 

18 with the values shown in Figure 4-16 for the 

19 1965 silos, where the maximum dose rate is 

20 identified somewhere around just slightly 

21 above one millirem per hour.

22 I think what was initially 

23 identified in this particular finding, back 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
233 

1 2006, was the fact that when you went very close 

2 to the silos themselves, and I guess maybe on 

3 the other side of the berm that was ultimately 

4 constructed, you would encounter dose rates 

5 between 30 and 60 millirem per hour.

6 Now, I think that's what that 

7 particular finding identifies. I was not the 

8 person who identified this finding. But I'm

9 trying to respond to the finding the way I read 

10 it. And I note that they've made changes in the 

11 current TBD.

12 But the dose rates in Table 4-16 are 

13 not necessarily the ones that I think were 

14 identified by the original people who wrote the 

15 finding on the 26 back in 2006.

16 Because we're talking about dose 

17 rates between 30 and 60 millirem per hour, as 

18 he quotes there, for even, maybe especially 

19 female employees during the years who were not 

20 monitored. It involved those unmonitored 

21 workers who may have taken breaks near the silo.

22 The assumption is, if you had an 

23 unmonitored worker who decides to sit 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
234 

1 shadows of the Silo 1 and 2, he might have been 

2 exposed to 30 to 60 millirem per hour, which is 

3 -- as I said, I don't know if there's any 

4 evidence to that effect. But this is really 

5 the crux of the question associated with 

6 Finding 26. And it cannot be answered with 

7 4-16.

8 MR. STIVER: Okay. Would you 

9 recommend then that we should keep this one 

10 open?

11 DR. BEHLING: Well, I would be 

12 happy to listen to what NIOSH has to say on this, 

13 in the sense where hopefully there weren't 

14 enough people stupid enough to sit next to the 

15 silos, given the fact that they understood that 

16 those readings were fairly high.

17 But, you know, this is what the 

18 original finding really requests to give 

19 answers to. Whether or not that question is 

20 legitimate is another question.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Is there any 

22 indication that anybody was ever out by the 

23 silos and not monitored? I mean, has anybody 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
235 

1 ever said that?

2 MR. ROLFES: I've never seen any 

3 indication that people weren't monitored at the 

4 site, other than the female employees not being 

5 monitored, since they didn't have --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. They 

7 discriminated against female employees for a 

8 while. And they wouldn't let them go out back, 

9 anywhere near the radioactive, radiological 

10 material. I mean, that's true.

11 But that doesn't mean that they, you 

12 know they didn't badge them, they let them 

13 wander around wherever they wanted. I don't 

14 know of any time or any circumstance when 

15 somebody would be out by the K-65 silos without 

16 being monitored.

17 MR. STIVER: It seems kind of 

18 far-fetched that you'd have somebody taking a 

19 lunch break next to the silos, but --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Who would be there?

21 MR. STIVER: Yes.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, they were, 

23 I mean, this was not an administrative area, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
236 

1 this was the waste storage area, you know, out, 

2 you know, well within the controlled fence. I 

3 don't know. What's the circumstance where 

4 you'd have somebody who wasn't monitored in the 

5 vicinity of the silos?

6 MR. STIVER: That's kind of the way 

7 I interpret it, as being -- You know, this 

8 finding pre-dates my involvement by about four 

9 years in the program. But, I think it might 

10 have been Arjun who came up with that one.

11 But, yes, I can't interpret that to 

12 mean that the TBD was that silent on, you know, 

13 modeling, and that particular source term an 

14 entire post, yet, you know, reasonable 

15 distances from the silo. It's not for people 

16 who would be right next to it. But if that was 

17 truly the intent, I just don't see it as being 

18 a very likely scenario, certainly.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, the --

20 MR. STIVER: To the extent that the 

21 external coworker models are being implemented 

22 now too. I mean, you would have to worry about 

23 an unmonitored female. And you would get 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
237 

1 sort of either environmental dose or, you know, 

2 an external --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I don't, I 

4 really don't, you know, I don't understand what 

5 the thought process is for the unmonitored 

6 people outside, you know. That's what I'm 

7 missing.

8 This is, if you really talking 

9 about, you know, being right there by the silos 

10 with about 30 mR per hour, well, who's going to 

11 be there that's not monitored, you know? If 

12 you're worried about the dose rate in the silos 

13 out on Willey Road, you know --

14 MR. STIVER: Yes. Somebody that 

15 just --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: -- off the boundary 

17 of the property, that's addressed elsewhere.

18 MR. BARTON: So really, the 

19 situation really is dose rates, or dose 

20 estimates would never really be used, right? 

21 Because you're either monitored --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

23 MR. BARTON: Or if you're 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
238 

1 out by the K-65 silos, and when you say that in 

2 your CATI, then you'd get the coworker model, 

3 right?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. You're going 

5 to be monitored --

6 MR. STIVER: But once again, this 

7 kind of pre-dates the coworker model. So that, 

8 you know, we're looking back at Zion.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I mean, 

10 maybe it comes from that. Maybe it comes from 

11 back before there was a coworker model.

12 MR. STIVER: Yes, yes. I think the 

13 problem with this is these languishing for 

14 eight years.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

16 MR. STIVER: The program moves on, 

17 and people involved in developing these are no 

18 longer involved. And so, what seemed to be an 

19 important thing at the time may no longer be 

20 very pertinent.

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: This is only 

22 dealing with unmonitored, right? Because, I 

23 guess I was kind of looking at a little bit 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
239 

1 different of people going out there and taking 

2 these rad readings on top of that, that you're 

3 --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, but they --

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: But they're all 

6 monitored.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Monitored.

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right.

9 MR. STIVER: And your rad safers 

10 are being monitored, have their own 

11 instrumentation.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: How about any of 

13 the other Board Members? Are they, have we got 

14 any questions on this?

15 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Not at this 

16 point.

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. What do 

18 you feel we ought to do, Phil? I don't see 

19 where we use this. I think this is kind of a 

20 remnant from before.

21 MR. STIVER: See, the key thing 

22 that's open really has much value to it.

23 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I recommend 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
240 

1 close it. Any other Board Members have any 

2 issues with that?

3 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I can't think of 

4 any reason not to at this point.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Okay, 

6 we'll close that then.

7 MR. STIVER: Okay. Let me make a 

8 note to that effect.

9 MR. STIVER: Now, this is kind of an 

10 interesting one, 29. This takes us way back 

11 again. Occupational internal exposure radon 

12 is estimated based on just two radon data points 

13 from 1953. This is an inadequate basis to 

14 reconstruct occupational radon dose.

15 It's clearly not related to radon 

16 emanating from the silos. But due to radon 

17 progeny and hail during driver unloading as 

18 Silos 1 and 2 were being filled. I don't 

19 believe this ever made its way into worker 

20 discussions outside of some other related 

21 issue. I guess the response is what kind of 

22 surprised me.

23 MR. ROLFES: I was 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
241 

1 response too when I saw that earlier. I don't 

2 --

3 MR. STIVER: It says --

4 MR. ROLFES: -- know how that got 

5 in.

6 MR. STIVER: NIOSH is recommending 

7 the 1953 radon exposure be added in the SEC. 

8 And that would certainly make the point moot, 

9 the finding moot. But I just put that question 

10 to NIOSH.

11 MR. ROLFES: I'm curious how it got 

12 in there myself. Because I saw that. And I 

13 thought maybe it was something that, you know, 

14 just popped in there. But I don't know where 

15 that came from.

16 And I think this pertains to maybe 

17 using radon breath data for the estimation of 

18 radium body burdens, is this, that we would 

19 incorporate that into our approach for 

20 reconstructing the progeny from K-65 filling 

21 operations.

22 DR. BEHLING: Can I make a comment 

23 here? I believe I have a fairly 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
242 

1 understanding what was meant by --

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Please.

3 DR. BEHLING: -- Finding Number 29. 

4 And I think it is really based on the 13,000 

5 drums that, for which the raffinate was 

6 transferred into Silos 1 and 2. And I looked 

7 at what he wrote back in 2006.

8 And the issue that he raised was 

9 probably addressed much more extensively in my 

10 review of the SEC Evaluation Report later on. 

11 And I identified that particular issue as 

12 Finding Number 4.2-1. And I just want to go 

13 over that.

14 Because this is the way in which 

15 NIOSH modeled the exposure, internal exposure, 

16 principally from the transfer of raffinate from 

17 the 13,000 drums to the Silos 1 and 2. And I 

18 addressed that in my draft report back in 2007.

19 And if for any reason somebody wants 

20 to look at that extensively it's defined on Page 

21 37 to, I guess probably to, let's see, that's 

22 containment, 44, all the way to Page 46. 

23 There's an attachment to 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
243 

1 But what I really questioned there 

2 was the way in which NIOSH assessed the exposure 

3 potential for the transfer of raffinate from 

4 drums to silos, using a couple of empirical data 

5 points. And then modeling those data points in 

6 a way that I did not consider 

7 claimant-favorable. In fact, far from it.

8 If everyone agrees, I can go through 

9 the issue, or simply defer the issue to a later 

10 time by telling you that this issue was 

11 addressed in my finding of Evaluation Report, 

12 the SEC Evaluation Report at Finding 4.2-1. Do 

13 we have time? If we do, I can go through it now. 

14 Or we can postpone it for a later discussion.

15 MR. STIVER: Well, why don't you go 

16 ahead and go through it, Hans? This is also 

17 related to SEC Issue 4, which is kind of 

18 similar, I believe.

19 DR. BEHLING: Okay. I think I know 

20 what's meant by the two data points. But 

21 anyway, let me just quickly go through it. 

22 Again, for those who may be taking notes, NIOSH, 

23 on Page 37 of my report that assessed the SEC 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
244 

1 Petition Evaluation.

2 And on that page I talk about the key 

3 elements of the K-65 dose model, which involves 

4 the 13,0000 drums of K-65 waste into Silo 1 and 

5 2, between July '52 and September '58. We're 

6 talking about a six-year period.

7 One of the data points was, 

8 involved a small number of record data sheets 

9 between '52 and '58 involving air samples, 

10 which had a wide range of activity levels to 

11 find an alpha activity per cubic meter.

12 And those values range from less 

13 than a MAC to 17,777 dpm per cubic meter, or 268 

14 MAC. And so there are some data there. These 

15 air samples consisted both of general air 

16 samples, as well as breathing zone samples.

17 And I, you know, identified some of 

18 the parameters that involved the flow rate of 

19 the air samples, which was consistently around 

20 0.02 cubic liters per minute, or that 

21 translates to 20 cubic liters per minute for 

22 both general air and sampling at the time. And 

23 the same thing, duration was about one to 30 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
245 

1 minutes.

2 Anyway, so what were the 

3 assumptions that NIOSH used? They obviously 

4 start out with the assumption that there were 

5 13,000 drums. And one of the key assumptions 

6 was that this transfer took place around the 

7 clock, in three shifts.

8 And one of the other key parameters, 

9 and it was a very spotty parameter, was that one 

10 of the data sheets showed that in one day 80 

11 drums were transferred.

12 Then they used, by and large, to 

13 control the time frame during this exposure, 

14 because they have air sampling but they don't 

15 know exactly the time frame, they used external 

16 dose rates. And this is where I sort of had a 

17 problem.

18 A group of external dose data sheets 

19 were available for 22 workers. And they were 

20 used as a basis for defining the yearly exposure 

21 duration for K-65 airborne contaminants, and 

22 include the following. One of the, among those 

23 22 there were, NIOSH chose 13 workers with the 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
246 

1 highest doses, ranging from 115 to 500 millirem 

2 average per week.

3 And then the available records show 

4 that three of the 13 workers were assigned to 

5 K-65 for three weeks. And there were ten other 

6 workers who were assigned for six weeks.

7 The highest recorded weekly 

8 external gamma dose among the 13 workers was 

9 1200 millirem per week. So, for the 13 

10 workers, the collective average exposure for 

11 all 13 workers was calculated at 312 millirem 

12 per week.

13 So they used these dose rates, 

14 external dose rates as a way of gauging how much 

15 time was spent there. This is T, here. And 

16 we're really talking about understanding what 

17 the internal exposure was. And that was now 

18 based on external dose rates. And I just 

19 mentioned those.

20 So anyway, going on here, NIOSH did 

21 define the collective average external dose of 

22 312 millirem per week for the 13 highest K-65 

23 workers, was used by the model to justify yearly 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
247 

1 exposure time to K-65 airborne levels by means 

2 of the following assumption.

3 NIOSH assumes for 1952 the annual 

4 external exposure limit for penetrating 

5 radiation was five rem. If you want to, please 

6 write that down. Because I'm going to get back 

7 to it shortly.

8 NIOSH further assumed that the 

9 extent they must have had, not being able to 

10 prove that, they must have had the more 

11 restrictive administrative dose limit of four 

12 rem per year.

13 So, by dividing the assumed 

14 administrative dose limit of four rem per year 

15 by 312 millirem per week, NIOSH concluded that 

16 K-65 workers would be restricted to a maximum 

17 of three months, after which the worker would 

18 have to be shifted to a non-radiological work 

19 location.

20 The above derived three month per 

21 year exposure duration was further reduced to 

22 six weeks, as explained by the following 

23 statement on Page 27 of the TBD. And I quote, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
248 

1 from the information derived in the external 

2 dose data sheets, and the air monitoring sample 

3 sheet, it appears that the transfer could have 

4 limited to a period of ten weeks per year with 

5 no individual working more than a period of six 

6 weeks in a year, in order to control external 

7 dose within the regulatory limits.

8 Now, when you go back and check for 

9 the early '50s, the regulatory dose limit was 

10 not five rem. And there's no indication that 

11 there was administrative dose limit of four 

12 rem. In fact, the regulatory dose limit during 

13 those years was 15 rem.

14 So, the use, also the time frame is 

15 stacked by the very fact that they used the 

16 highest externally exposed workers, okay. And 

17 then, using the four rem as a restrictive limit, 

18 you're already stacking the cards against those 

19 who were not among the highest in terms of 

20 exposure.

21 Secondly, as I've already 

22 mentioned, the exposure limits during this six 

23 year period, the exposure limits employed by 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
249 

1 the AEC was 0.3 rem per week, 3.9 rem for 13 

2 weeks, and 15 rem in a calendar year, which is 

3 three times higher than NIOSH's assumed value 

4 of five rem. And also, there's no indication 

5 that there existed such an administrative dose 

6 limit of four rem.

7 All these numbers, the highest 

8 exposure dose rate, and then the assumed 

9 regulatory and administrative dose rates, are 

10 used to restrict exposure time frame for the 

11 workers who were transferring the raffinate 

12 into the silos, and their potential exposures 

13 to an inhalation one.

14 So, in summary, I don't believe this 

15 is claimant-favorable. I think that there is 

16 numerous assumptions here that restrict the 

17 time frame based on external dose rates and 

18 assumed regulatory and administrative dose 

19 rates. So, my feeling is that this issue needs 

20 to be looked at.

21 MR. ROLFES: Hans, I think you 

22 might be referring to a really old version of 

23 the Site Profile, maybe. And we're not using 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
250 

1 external doses as a controlling factor to 

2 estimate a worker's internal exposure.

3 We had proposed using the radon 

4 breath samples to estimate radium body burden, 

5 and associated radionuclides. We're using 

6 bioassay data essentially, to estimate 

7 workers' internal exposure from K-65 

8 materials.

9 The external dose rate I know we 

10 discussed, you know, external doses as being 

11 one of the controlling factors. But it wasn't 

12 something that we are proposing to ratio our 

13 internal doses, based upon.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there's a 

15 question, just based on my own ignorance. Do 

16 we have an estimate of radon intake, as they 

17 were in these, of 55 rem?

18 MR. ROLFES: Most of the radon 

19 would be inhaled and exhaled. But the radium 

20 body burdens were being estimated based upon 

21 radon breath samples.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, 

23 that's a radium body burden. And 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
251 

1 DR. BEHLING: You know, you 

2 mentioned that you don't do this anymore. But 

3 I looked at the TBD. And Section 5, which is 

4 internal, still identifies those values.

5 MR. ROLFES: Okay.

6 DR. BEHLING: If you look at Page 26 

7 of the current version, which is 2004 old. And 

8 I assume you haven't changed anything. It 

9 still has those numbers.

10 MR. ROLFES: All the updated things 

11 that we've discussed in the Work Group meetings 

12 have been incorporated into Report 52. It's 

13 titled, it's a White Paper basically discussing 

14 internal dosimetry issues at the feed materials 

15 production center. So our updated approach is 

16 in that document, which is --

17 DR. BEHLING: Well, as I said, I 

18 don't, I'm not familiar with that document. 

19 But if you look at Page 26 of the current TBD, 

20 from 2004 --

21 MR. ROLFES: From 2004.

22 DR. BEHLING: -- Page -- 2004, you 

23 will see the exact numbers that I just quoted 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
252 

1 to you.

2 MR. ROLFES: Right. And the TBD 

3 hasn't been updated to incorporate the 

4 discussions over the past eight years from the 

5 Work Group. They've been incorporated into 

6 Report 52, and ultimately we'll revise the TBD 

7 to incorporate that information, once we have 

8 closure on the issues.

9 I believe that we've come to 

10 agreement, as a matter of discussion from the 

11 past several Working Group Meetings, that this 

12 wasn't an SEC issue. That we all were in 

13 agreement that we could estimate radium body 

14 burdens using the radon breath data. And I 

15 think that's what your issue is.

16 DR. BEHLING: Yes. Well I 

17 identified it as an SEC issue, based on my 

18 review of the SEC Petition and your Evaluation 

19 Report. And when you do change it, do at least 

20 look at my finding 4.2-1.

21 Because I looked at that model, and 

22 I find it very flawed. And so, if you update 

23 the internal dose, essentially the 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
253 

1 component, I think you should look at that as 

2 it currently reads, and versus what I 

3 identified as a serious flaw.

4 MR. ROLFES: Other members of SC&A 

5 and the Work Group have looked at our Report 52 

6 though, is my understanding. And we, I believe 

7 SC&A has come to agreement with us that the new 

8 approach that we're proposing is acceptable.

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: You know --

10 DR. BEHLING: Well, I wasn't party 

11 to that review process then. I'm only --

12 MR. STIVER: This, actually, Hans, 

13 this is John. That resolution of the radon 

14 breath data actually pre-dated my association 

15 with Fernald. I think it was during the 2008 

16 deliberations that you guys reached consensus 

17 on that.

18 I know it's been listed as no longer 

19 an SEC issue. And it's been tabled to TBD. I 

20 can't give you the chapter and verse as to why 

21 that took place. But I've gone back to the 

22 worker transcripts from that time period. I 

23 know, John Mauro, you were kind of heavily 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
254 

1 involved in it back then. Do you remember much 

2 about this?

3 DR. MAURO: Well, yes, I do. My 

4 recollection is that the radon breath analysis 

5 was accepted as a method for reconstructing the 

6 body burden of radium in workers involved in I 

7 guess this drum transfer activity. So, I

8 recall that issue being resolved.

9 Now, whether that covers the 

10 population of workers we're talking about here, 

11 I really, I'm not quite sure what workers. 

12 There was also an issue related to thorium 

13 intake. And, you know, unfortunately this is, 

14 you know, it was a little bit more complicated 

15 than just looking at the radium.

16 In other words, I do agree, I do 

17 clearly remember that intakes of, body burdens 

18 of radium 226 were modeled using radon breath 

19 analysis. And there was considerable amount 

20 of data for the workers involved in certain 

21 activities where -- and that issue was 

22 resolved.

23 And there is actually a procedure 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
255 

1 how to do that. That procedure was reviewed 

2 and finalized, and it's, I think that issue was 

3 closed. But if we're talking about other 

4 radionuclides that might be at issue here, 

5 other than radium 226, that might have been 

6 inhaled --

7 MR. STIVER: I remember the thorium 

8 230 came up in later Work Group discussions.

9 DR. MAURO: Yes. That's where I'm 

10 headed.

11 MR. STIVER: And we did agree that 

12 their method could be used to reconstruct 

13 doses. I can't tell you exactly why we agreed 

14 without going back and reviewing those 

15 transcripts. I think this was in the 2010 time 

16 frame, 2010, 2011.

17 But it has been listed, you know, in 

18 our records as having been resolved as an SEC 

19 issue. Now, I guess the thing we have to do now 

20 is keep it flagged for review when TBD 5 is 

21 revised, and the Report 52 methodologies are 

22 incorporated.

23 DR. BEHLING: Just a question 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
256 

1 John Mauro. The document that you say reviews 

2 the issue and identifies radon breath analysis 

3 for the assessment of radium 226, was that the, 

4 by and large involve, did that involve workers 

5 who were engaged in the transfer of raffinates 

6 of the drums to the silos?

7 DR. MAURO: Yes. But there were, 

8 it was, as John points out it was a little bit 

9 more complicated because there were other 

10 workers involved, where there was thorium 230, 

11 but not necessarily accompanied in a known 

12 ratio to radium 226.

13 The way I recall it, the hook on 

14 dealing with this problem was that you had the 

15 radon breath analysis, which allowed you to 

16 predict the radium body burden. And if you had 

17 knowledge on the relative abundance of thorium 

18 230 and radium 226 in these, I guess, containers 

19 that were being repackaged and handled, you had 

20 a way to get a handle on thorium 230.

21 However, I remember Arjun pointing 

22 out at the time that there was a certain waste 

23 stream where you didn't have that known 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
257 

1 relationship between the radium 226 and the 

2 thorium 230.

3 MR. STIVER: Okay. I remember 

4 this. This was involving the transfer to Silo 

5 3 from Plant 2 and 3.

6 DR. MAURO: Right.

7 MR. STIVER: And we went through 

8 this in a lot of detail. And it sounded like, 

9 I'm going to give a bit, I believe this material 

10 used an air lift to bring it over. It was dry 

11 material. It was air lifted over to Silo 3. 

12 There was general air sample data involved.

13 And also there's a -- I think the 

14 issue is that you couldn't really identify 

15 thorium, because the uranium levels were so low 

16 that there was a concern that, Arjun argues 

17 this, that you wouldn't be able to get a hook 

18 back on to the thorium 230 that way.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's --

20 (Simultaneous speaking)

21 MR. STIVER: The methodology that 

22 we're going to use was more than adequate to 

23 address the ranges of exposure you might expect 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
258 

1 to see.

2 MR. KATZ: So, where do you want to 

3 go with this?

4 MR. STIVER: I recommend that we 

5 keep this one in abeyance until we have a chance

6 to look at the TBD revision. And that is SEC 

7 Issue 4 as well.

8 DR. BEHLING: Yes. And my feeling 

9 is that if the TBD 5 for Fernald gets revised 

10 that they simply then delete it if it's not 

11 going to be useful in dose reconstruction. 

12 Because right now that model is definitely 

13 flawed.

14 The very numbers that I just cited 

15 to you regarding that model on Page 26 and 27 

16 of the TBD needs to be eliminated because we 

17 don't use this model.

18 MR. ROLFES: Right. That will be, 

19 Hans. And I think that was prior to the time 

20 that we had found the radon breath data, when 

21 the TBD was written in 2004.

22 DR. BEHLING: If that's the case, 

23 then I think we can somewhat close this issue 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
259 

1 out.

2 DR. MAURO: Or leave it in 

3 abeyance.

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, I --

5 DR. MAURO: We're going to do it 

6 here I guess --

7 MR. STIVER: We'll leave this in 

8 abeyance until we actually see the TBD --

9 DR. MAURO: Yes, okay.

10 MR. STIVER: -- 5 revision.

11 MR. ROLFES: I was going to say --

12 DR. MAURO: That's what we usually 

13 do.

14 MR. ROLFES: I was going to say, the 

15 one issue, the thorium 230 issue coming from the 

16 process plants going to Silo 3 is a slightly 

17 different issue than --

18 MR. STIVER: Yes, yes.

19 MR. ROLFES: -- estimating radium 

20 and associated radionuclide body burdens from 

21 radon breath data.

22 MR. STIVER: Oh, yes, yes.

23 MR. ROLFES: It's two separate 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
260 

1 issues. And --

2 MR. STIVER: The two issues where 

3 they were kind of conflated --

4 MR. ROLFES: Right, right.

5 MR. STIVER: -- during the finding.

6 MR. ROLFES: Just the raffinate 

7 issue type discussions. I mean, my opinion is 

8 that the Silo 1 and 2 workers that were working 

9 on dumping the 13,000 drums into Silos 1 and 2, 

10 that we've got an approach that addresses that.

11 But the thorium 230 issue from plant 

12 operations, I know we discussed as part of the 

13 issue, just because it was lumped into silo 

14 discussions. I think they're two separate 

15 issue.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, they are. They 

17 are.

18 MR. ROLFES: So, I think the one 

19 finding that Hans was relating was more towards 

20 Silos 1 and 2, versus the thorium --

21 MR. STIVER: Yes. That's going to 

22 be the revision model that's laid out in Report 

23 52 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
261 

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So, we'll keep 

2 this open until the --

3 MR. STIVER: We'll keep it open 

4 until they look in the TBD, and make sure that 

5 things were done as agreed.

6 MR. KATZ: Well, it's in abeyance 

7 actually, it looks like.

8 MR. STIVER: Okay. Let's see, 

9 where are we here? Well, a series of ten easy 

10 ones coming up here. And, John, these are the 

11 ones related to medical dose.

12 DR. MAURO: Yes.

13 MR. STIVER: Thirty to 32.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes. I can address 

15 those. Originally, these were one of the 

16 issues that always came up. This goes way 

17 back, related to, do you use photographic 

18 analysis, lumbar spine analysis. You make 

19 those assumptions part of the medical X-ray.

20 And there was some guidance on when 

21 you do that, when you don't do that. And it has 

22 a function of time, that sort of thing. That 

23 goes back to OTIB-6. So this has been, 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
262 

1 issue's related to these types of examinations 

2 other than chest, the classic standard of DA 

3 chest examination.

4 There are also issues related to, 

5 and this goes back a long way, to retakes, 

6 issues related to, was, these being collimated. 

7 So, these were all related to the medical 

8 examinations.

9 So, what I did is take a look at the 

10 new Site Profile, Revision 1, dated 1/2/2014, 

11 recent, to see what they say about all these 

12 things now. And there's a very detailed 

13 description of the equipment that was used, the 

14 procedures that were used.

15 They addressed the subject of 

16 retakes. They addressed the subject of 

17 collimation. They addressed the subject of 

18 uncertainty. And the equipment that was there 

19 as a function of time.

20 And my takeaway from this is that 

21 there is good reason to believe that there was 

22 not the equipment there for TFG. If it was it 

23 would have been part of this, there 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
263 

1 been some discussion. Because they went 

2 through the different equipment they used. So 

3 I think we could -- there was a time when we 

4 would automatically assume TFG exposures prior 

5 to a certainty in 1970. But I think the 

6 evidence, the record that we have here now in 

7 the Site Profile, you know, is very, quite 

8 detailed. And there's no indication that you 

9 would assume that there was some TFG 

10 examination going on.

11 So, I'm agreeing with NIOSH that I 

12 don't think these are issues any longer. With 

13 the new information that they've uncovered and 

14 put into this new Site Profile provides a great 

15 deal of evidence that both TFG and lateral, as 

16 they called them, I guess, lumbar spine 

17 examinations, which could be substantially 

18 higher than your classic chest X-ray. There's 

19 no reason to believe that those took place.

20 And so, that's not part of the false 

21 assumptions that are used in reconstructing 

22 worker doses. And I think the section of this 

23 OTIB-17-3 gives you the evidence 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
264 

1 feel confident that those types of exposure 

2 turn out to be assigned, and that they have 

3 taken into consideration issues relating to

4 collimation and issues related to retakes. 

5 And I'm recommending that we close this issue.

6 MR. STIVER: John, as kind of a 

7 follow on that, Issue 33 is related to that too. 

8 And it states that NIOSH had prematurely 

9 concluded that lumbar spine actuaries for 

10 laborers and construction workers were not 

11 conditions of employment.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay.

13 MR. STIVER: And this is something 

14 we had left open. NIOSH in their response 

15 cited several SRDDs, excuse me, claim file 

16 records, to show that those X-rays were 

17 performed, having been listed as suspensory, 

18 and not as an annual pre-year term.

19 And so Bob Barton went through, 

20 looked at about 30 different claim files, and 

21 basically came to the exact same conclusion 

22 that NIOSH did.

23 So, we see no evidence that these 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
265 

1 lumbar spine X-rays were ever a condition of 

2 employment for categories of workers, the heavy 

3 laborers and those type of people. And we also 

4 recommend 33 be closed as well.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Board 

6 Members, any objections to closing those?

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: No. I agree with 

8 closing them, Brad.

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Thank you, 

10 Mark. Phil?

11 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes. I agree 

12 too.

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Thank 

14 you. We'll go ahead and close those.

15 MR. STIVER: All right. Now, 

16 we're finally down to the remaining issues that 

17 were considered SEC issues. And kind of lumped 

18 together a lot of the different findings from 

19 Hans' 2007 SEC Evaluation Report.

20 SEC Issue 3 is related to recycled 

21 uranium. We talked about that in relation to 

22 a couple of the Site Profile findings earlier 

23 on. And once again, we recommend that this one 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
266 

1 be kept in abeyance pending our review of the 

2 new TBD, to make sure that all the agreed upon 

3 levels and time periods are in fact 

4 incorporated.

5 I guess as a corollary to that, 

6 we're also going to kind of follow up on this 

7 issue, this notion of actinium 220, which, or 

8 excuse me, americium 241, and how that made its 

9 way into the finding.

10 SEC Issue 4 was the radon breath 

11 data, which we just talked about. We agreed 

12 that we're going to keep that one in abeyance 

13 as well, pending a review of the revised TBD.

14 SEC Issue 5 is the radon release 

15 from the K-65 silos, which Hans discussed 

16 earlier. And we're going to keep that open for 

17 discussion for the next Work Group meeting.

18 And we're finally getting down to 

19 the end here. SEC Issue 6D was the use of chest 

20 counts throughout thorium 232 exposures in the 

21 1979 to 1989 time frame. And as Joyce 

22 mentioned earlier, and we've discussed in 

23 several Work Group meetings, we're basically 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
267 

1 agreement with that approach.

2 However, we want to keep this issue 

3 open pending our review of the post SEC thorium 

4 models. So that will be a topic of discussion 

5 at the next meeting as well.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right.

7 MR. STIVER: And finally, this last 

8 one is kind of an orphan issue. It's not really 

9 related to a lot of the other stuff. This was 

10 4.5-1, the absence of performance standards and 

11 quality assurance for personnel and 

12 dosimeters. I asked Hans to take a look of 

13 this, because it pre-dated my involvement. 

14 And, Hans, would you like to talk about that?

15 DR. BEHLING: Yes. By and large, 

16 Finding 4.5-1 that you just identified really 

17 reflects something that I extracted from the 

18 National Lead of Ohio corporate response to 

19 these assumed assessment fact sheet dated 

20 September 11, 1981, in which it was 

21 acknowledged that there are certain 

22 deficiencies. But the report is part of my 

23 assessment response to this fact sheet.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
268 

1 And it goes from Page 113 all the way 

2 to 118 in my report of my review of the SEC 

3 Petition and Evaluation Report. Anyway, just 

4 to quickly review a couple of things that were 

5 cited in this response to this assessment fact 

6 sheet, there were some concerns about the fact 

7 that test dosimeters, that is control badges, 

8 were not routinely processed along with exposed 

9 badges worn by people.

10 There was an issue involving heat 

11 damage from leaving badges in cars where the hot 

12 weather was a problem. And however the use of 

13 industry responses. However, this has not 

14 been a real problem for many years. Leaving 

15 badges in desks, cars, et cetera, did not have 

16 a significant impact of the overall external 

17 dosimetry program.

18 And then there were also issues 

19 involving failure to have a bona fide official 

20 training program for the technicians engaged in 

21 assessing the badges, and so forth, and so 

22 forth. And I don't want to make an issue out 

23 of it. In fact, I'm going to conclude that 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
269 

1 should be closed.

2 But my statement of findings, and I 

3 quote, I state the following, although SC&A 

4 does not generally question the merits of 

5 external dose data, the credibility of external 

6 dosimetry data has to be viewed in context with 

7 several limitations as described in the 

8 document entitled Response to Dosimetry System 

9 Fact Sheet, dated September 11, 1981.

10 And all I wanted to do here is, 

11 obviously we can't do anything about this 

12 deficiency. But sometimes if we do recognize 

13 there were certain limitations, what we can do 

14 is perhaps explain the uncertainty by which 

15 some of the data has been reported.

16 Normally, when we talk about the 

17 uncertainty of dosimeters, when we start out 

18 with the assumption that the only variability 

19 of a dosimeter response to a constant radiation 

20 field is, in the case of film dosimeters, what 

21 type of film was used, was the developmental 

22 time a constant set of --

23 In other words, we never, ever 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
270 

1 incorporate uncertainty that involves human 

2 errors, such as the failure to use control 

3 badges as part of this, or perhaps update the 

4 dose response curve for a particular badge of 

5 film dosimeters that have potentially been 

6 revised in some way or another.

7 And so, I'm not looking to say 

8 anything other than, perhaps in the face of 

9 certain uncertainties that we notice it and 

10 document it, the option is perhaps in 

11 explaining the uncertainty associated with the 

12 actual recorded doses.

13 But beyond that I don't expect to do 

14 anything. And at this point I don't think 

15 there's really any way which we can rectify 

16 these deficiencies. Accept them, and say we 

17 close out this issue.

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Any other Board 

19 Members, any questions?

20 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes. I've got 

21 one quick question. And I'm just kind of 

22 backtracking just a second here. Talking 

23 about the americium, do they know what kind 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
271 

1 quantities were handled and stored there? 

2 Whether it was in the form of an oxide, or a 

3 metal?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this, there 

5 was never any americium, you know, per se, 

6 handled at Fernald. The question, or the 

7 comment or finding has to do with, was there 

8 americium in recycled uranium? In other 

9 words, uranium that had been, you know, run 

10 through the Hanford PUREX.

11 And then they reclaim the uranium 

12 and send it back. That's what we call recycle. 

13 And in that recycled uranium there's always a 

14 little plutonium and actinium and technetium. 

15 And those were the three radionuclides that we 

16 looked for in recycled uranium. In other 

17 words, the contaminants concerned.

18 And the finding was, well, you 

19 didn't consider americium. And I don't know 

20 that there was any americium there. So, that's 

21 the nature of the americium is, was it present 

22 as a contaminant in the recycled uranium? Not 

23 that we handled, not that any americium 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
272 

1 handled there.

2 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

3 Because, see, if it's just like a contaminate 

4 in the recycled uranium then --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it might have 

6 been.

7 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: -- it's not the 

8 issue that I was thinking of. I was thinking 

9 of, you know, were they handling a few gram 

10 quantities, were they handling kilograms of it, 

11 you know, just what I'm, where I was coming 

12 from. So that --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: No, if it --

14 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: -- kind of takes 

15 care of my concerns.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. If it was 

17 there, if it was there it would have been as one 

18 of the contaminants that came out in recycled 

19 uranium. But I don't, I know that it was not 

20 one that people were concerned about. I don't 

21 think that's true all through the complex. I 

22 think all through the complex --

23 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. 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
273 

1 never --

2 (Simultaneous speaking)

3 MR. STIVER: -- in the recycled 

4 uranium reports I read from 2000 and so forth, 

5 the DOE reports that were mentioned.

6 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay. That 

7 answers my questions.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Hey, Brad, this is 

9 Mark.

10 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. Go ahead.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: I just have one, 

12 going back to SEC 4. And this is the radon 

13 breath stuff that Hans was talking about 

14 earlier, and it came up again. Is there a time 

15 period? I'm trying to remember myself. I 

16 don't doubt that we discussed this.

17 But I'm trying to remember what time 

18 period this was, this technique was going to be 

19 used over. Or is it limited to that specific 

20 operation of, involving the drumming of the 

21 material for the silos, or what? Does anyone 

22 know that offhand? I can also look back at the 

23 report. But, I'm curious.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
274 

1 MR. ROLFES: This is Mark. I'd 

2 have to look back in Report 52. I know as far 

3 as when we would apply it, the method to 

4 estimate the radium body burden. The majority 

5 of the data that were collected though were in 

6 the 1951-1952 time period.

7 And I want to say that there might 

8 have been around 400 usable radon breath 

9 samples. I don't know if we put any additional 

10 details about using it up until like, you know, 

11 a point when we have documentation showing 

12 that, you know.

13 It was, there were a few occasions, 

14 you know, in the, you know, maybe one here and 

15 there in the 1960s, where they might have dumped 

16 additional materials into the K-65 silo. 

17 They'd take up a manhole and dump in a barrel, 

18 or dump in a small quantity of materials.

19 We've seen some bits and pieces of 

20 documentation showing that there were, you 

21 know, some workers that were involved in doing 

22 something of that sort. But I'd have to look 

23 back to see what years that approach or coworker 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
275 

1 approach would be applied. But the reason --

2 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

3 Definitely I want to look back at that report. 

4 And is there an easy way to find this Report 52? 

5 I know I've seen it in the past. Or can it just 

6 be sent around by email? Or is it something 

7 that can't be distributed?

8 MR. ROLFES: Yes. It's out on the 

9 K: drive. I was going to say, it might be on 

10 our website. But I'm not certain that it is 

11 yet. It's definitely, I can send you the 

12 directory if you'd like, or email it to you.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: It might be easiest 

14 to email it to him.

15 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. If you can 

16 email it? I mean, I have the government email, 

17 so maybe I can get it that way.

18 MR. ROLFES: Yes, CSP?

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

20 MR. ROLFES: CSP, okay.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I don't know 

22 that the Board can see the entire K: drive.

23 MEMBER GRIFFON: 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
276 

1 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Hey, Brad?

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes.

3 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: This is Paul. 

4 I'm back on the line here.

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, welcome 

6 back.

7 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: On Hans' last 

8 discussions, my understanding is you were 

9 concerned, or raised the concern about the size 

10 of the uncertainty that's reflected in these 

11 other kinds of errors.

12 But in practice, maybe I'll ask you 

13 this, that's either covered by the existing 

14 distribution that's used, or is there something 

15 else that's going to be done that covers that?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Hans' 

17 recommendation was that we expand the standard, 

18 you know.

19 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: So, I wasn't 

20 sure if you were actually planning to do that, 

21 or if it's a different general comment on that.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I guess I'd 

23 have to look at that response in that 1981, 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
277 

1 the situation was there. I do recall from a 

2 couple of years later --

3 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Hans was 

4 recommending that we close it. But I wasn't --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

6 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: -- certain if 

7 there was anything specific that was going to 

8 be done about it.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'd have to, 

10 I think I'd have to talk to some folks about what 

11 makes sense if we're going to expand it, how far 

12 do you expand the uncertainty along the --

13 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: If you need to. 

14 Is it already covered?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: And there is an --

16 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, it's just 

17 it's the --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean --

19 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: -- kinds of 

20 regular uncertainties.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I mean, 

22 another think to think about as we go down this 

23 road in terms of the reliability 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
278 

1 dosimetry from a couple of years later than 

2 that, around 1983, there was some testing done 

3 of various dosimetry systems around the DOE 

4 system to determine how they would compare to 

5 the upcoming proposed Bell Lab standards, you 

6 know.

7 Because Department of Energy was 

8 interesting in publishing these Bell Lab 

9 standards, but they wanted to see how people 

10 would do ahead of time. Because they didn't 

11 want to create a disaster by just plopping these 

12 to that.

13 And so they did a round robin test, 

14 or not round robin, they had several DOE 

15 processors participating in this testing 

16 against that. And Fernald was one of the few 

17 sites still using film. This would have been 

18 in the early '80s. Most people were on TLDs by 

19 then.

20 And they kind of confounded the 

21 expectations by performing really well in that 

22 round of testing, their film badge did. So, 

23 there's at least another data point from 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
279 

1 couple, a year or two after the '81 event to 

2 indicate that Fernald's dosimetry was pretty 

3 reliable, you know, for what it was attempting 

4 to measure.

5 So, I'm kind of a mixed emotion 

6 about that, you know, on the one side, you know, 

7 if you, it really makes no particular, there's 

8 no downside really to expanding the uncertainty 

9 of the dosimetry reading if there's reason to 

10 do that.

11 I'm just not really 100 percent sure 

12 there is, because there is other data about the 

13 performance of the dosimetry system from about 

14 that same time period, where it would seem that 

15 the data was pretty good.

16 And I know the people who did the 

17 dosimetry processing. And I'm sure there was 

18 not a formal training program. But these were, 

19 I don't want to say old people. They were 

20 experienced people who had spent a life of 

21 meticulous care in their work.

22 And despite the fact that there 

23 wasn't a formalized documented training 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
280 

1 program, it was only like one or two people. 

2 And they knew what they were doing.

3 DR. BEHLING: And let me just add a 

4 couple of statements. Because in that review 

5 of the dosimetry report I think he responds or 

6 Fernald's response was as follows, there were 

7 no specific training requirements for the film 

8 badge technicians when this program began in 

9 1951.

10 The technician received on the job 

11 training. The technician now performing, 

12 i.e., and this is 1981, all film badge process 

13 began this work in 1952, and he's been the only 

14 technician doing this task since '59. So 

15 you're correct, Stu. Obviously this person 

16 was not doing it wrong. He'd been doing this 

17 work for many years.

18 But, nevertheless, there was no 

19 formal training. And I guess one of the 

20 deficiencies was the failure to use control 

21 badges with each badge, of worn badges, which 

22 is usually standard practice.

23 I'm not saying that there were real 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
281 

1 deficiencies here. But in light of 

2 contemporary requirements you would say, well, 

3 there's less than what you would normally 

4 expect in today's world. And then, I'm not 

5 going to recommend anything else beyond that.

6 I just brought it up, because it 

7 happened to be part of the information that I 

8 reviewed in behalf of the SEC. And, by the way, 

9 there was, in our, on that issue of NIOSH has 

10 stated that NIOSH will attempt to make more 

11 information available on O: drive for data 

12 capture. And they include five documents, 43, 

13 36, 46, 18, 42, 439, 85, 99.

14 I reviewed those documents. And 

15 they have a certain amount of merit. But they 

16 really do not address the issues that were cited 

17 in this particular finding. I mean, they go 

18 back, and they had a comparative review of 

19 dosimeters back in the early 1940s, '43, 

20 amongst the different laboratories.

21 And they showed to be fairly 

22 consistent in response to a constant radiation 

23 field. And that assures that the dosimeters 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
282 

1 were fine, operating fine under controlled 

2 conditions. But that, those documents that I 

3 read and offered, you offered to me to read, 

4 really didn't address the specific issues that 

5 were identified in Finding 4.2-1.

6 So, anyway, as I said, I stand by 

7 what I said. I don't think you can really do 

8 much. If there's anything that could be done 

9 is to perhaps widen the uncertainty associated 

10 with dosimeters. But I don't think that's 

11 doable, and at this point necessary.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: So what do we 

13 want to do?

14 MR. STIVER: Having the 

15 discussion, to close it out. There's nothing 

16 much to be done about it, adjusting the 

17 uncertainty.

18 First of all, you'd have to 

19 quantify, you know, what the increment would be 

20 applicable. And whether it would be a sum, and 

21 how that would affect the outcome, you know, for 

22 the individual badge, or for the model based on 

23 the badge.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
283 

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Other Board 

2 Members with this last one here? Do any of you 

3 have a problem with closing this out? Because 

4 I don't know what to do with it. You know, 

5 we've been discussing about this. So I guess 

6 I just wanted to know what you guys’ feeling 

7 about this was. Mark, any problem with it, 

8 closing it?

9 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I think it's 

10 kind of moot at this point. Let's just close 

11 it out.

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Thanks, 

13 Phil.

14 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I think so 

15 too, Brad. This is Mark.

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Paul? Not 

17 hearing any, we'll go ahead and close that one 

18 out.

19 MR. STIVER: And that was the last 

20 of them.

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yee haw.

22 MR. STIVER: Made it all the way 

23 through. So, I really --

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
284 

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: No, we --

2 MR. STIVER: We've got quite a few 

3 that are still in the docket.

4 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: We've got some 

5 still there. But, well --

6 MR. STIVER: So, next meeting.

7 MR. KATZ: John, you were worried 

8 we wouldn't have enough to talk about today.

9 MR. STIVER: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: We've made it.

11 MR. STIVER: Yes. I'm still 

12 revising my estimates.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I thought we'd be 

14 here all night.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: No, not 

16 tonight. We would be --

17 MR. STIVER: We've spent entire 

18 meetings just talking about radon.

19 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, we've got 

20 to be able to get through this.

21 MR. KATZ: It's a reminiscent day. 

22 Next meeting. We want to hunt for a date 

23 already?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
285 

1 MR. STIVER: Late November? 

2 Before Thanksgiving weekend? Because I won't 

3 be around.

4 MR. KATZ: Well, John, when do you

5 think you have to get your material cleared, and 

6 so on? So, when do you think?

7 MR. STIVER: Well --

8 MR. KATZ: You're actually giving 

9 everybody --

10 MR. STIVER: -- we're shooting for 

11 --

12 MR. KATZ: -- time to review it.

13 MR. STIVER: -- for the post-SEC 

14 thorium to have a document ready for DOE 

15 clearance, towards the end of October.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. Through 

17 clearance, finish clearance, or into 

18 clearance?

19 MR. STIVER: No, into clearance, 

20 depending on how long --

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. And how long has 

22 it taken them for these Fernald --

23 MR. STIVER: I usually like 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
286 

1 them a couple of weeks.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. They asked 

3 for ten working days, two weeks.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. So then end of 

5 October you get it to them. That puts us 

6 halfway through, or at least a quarter of the 

7 way through November, right?

8 MR. STIVER: Maybe the week after 

9 --

10 MR. KATZ: Plus we have a Board 

11 Meeting in November, the 6th and the 7th. So, 

12 I would say we wouldn't want to look to schedule 

13 before either -- well, there's Thanksgiving 

14 week. We don't want to do that.

15 There's the week of the 17th. If 

16 you think that's too early then we should push 

17 it to -- I was thinking we have, Brad, we have 

18 NTS in December, beginning first week of 

19 December. You want to partner these up?

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I would.

21 MR. KATZ: That would help you, 

22 right?

23 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes, it 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
287 

1 MR. STIVER: It would be a long 

2 trip.

3 MR. KATZ: So, NTS is December 3rd. 

4 What about, and that gives extra leeway for 

5 getting these things done. What about the 2nd 

6 or the 4th. That's a Tuesday or a Thursday, 

7 December 2nd or 4th. Mark, would the, how, do 

8 you have anything on your calendar for that 

9 week? Mark Griffon?

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: I just need a 

11 second to look.

12 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes. No, no, I 

13 wasn't rushing you. I just wanted to make sure 

14 you understood when -- and how about you, Phil, 

15 too? And Stu and Mark, does that work for you 

16 guys?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Works for me. The 

18 4th would be better. But I could do the 2nd.

19 MR. KATZ: How about you?

20 MR. ROLFES: I'm sort of at the 

21 hands of someone else right now in determining 

22 my future schedule here.

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Your knee, your 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
288 

1 surgery thing?

2 MR. ROLFES: Yes. I'm going to be 

3 on crutches at least six weeks I think. So, I 

4 don't know.

5 MR. STIVER: Well, you could still 

6 talk.

7 MR. ROLFES: I can. I can 

8 participate by phone.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: We could let him 

10 call in. We wouldn't make him hobble down.

11 MR. ROLFES: I haven't scheduled 

12 anything yet. So I just don't know exactly --

13 MR. KATZ: Okay.

14 MR. ROLFES: -- when.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay.

16 MR. ROLFES: I haven't spoken with 

17 him.

18 MR. KATZ: So, you said the 4th is 

19 better for you, Stu?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I can do the 

21 2nd, though.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay.

23 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
289 

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Let's shoot for 

2 the second.

3 MR. KATZ: Well let's, I just want 

4 to hear from Mark.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm okay on either 

6 of those days.

7 MR. KATZ: How about you, Paul?

8 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I can do the 

9 4th, but not the 2nd. Which date now, the 4th?

10 MR. KATZ: Yes. How about the 4th, 

11 Phil, December 4th?

12 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: November 4th?

13 MR. KATZ: No, December 4th, 

14 December 4th.

15 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: December 4th.

16 MR. KATZ: That's a Thursday.

17 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Let me check 

18 quick. That may be when I'm in Denver. Take 

19 me up there and dissect me.

20 MR. STIVER: Several operations.

21 MR. KATZ: That sounds great.

22 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes, if I'm 

23 still alive at that 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
290 

1 MR. KATZ: That's good. We want 

2 you alive. No inert bodies around here. 

3 Okay. So, December 4th it is. Fernald.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: So, Brad, I'll 

5 trade you birthdays. That's my birthday.

6 MR. KATZ: Oh, isn't that awesome.

7 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Hey, Brad, I got 

8 something to tell you.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: It's also the day I 

10 --

11 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I'll always be 

12 able to remember your birthday now.

13 MR. STIVER: The Lord giveth and 

14 the Lord taketh away.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Why is that?

16 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: [Identifying 

17 information redacted]

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, 

19 congratulations.

20 MR. STIVER: Congratulations, 

21 Phil.

22 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Thanks, all. 

23 I'll be able to remember your birthday from 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
291 

1 on.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, I hope 

3 that's a good thing.

4 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I'm sure it will 

5 be.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I wouldn't 

7 worry about my birthday, I'd remember hers.

8 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Well, see, 

9 that's kind of like I remember hers, then I 

10 remember yours.

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Oh, I see. 

12 Okay.

13 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: And if I forget 

14 hers, her grandma will remind me.

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Oh, okay. 

16 Well, anything else that needs to come before 

17 the Work Group at this time? If not --

18 MR. STIVER: I guess, Stu and I, we 

19 can kind of email each other about, you know, 

20 the coming deliberations, and so forth.

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Right.

22 MR. STIVER: And get all that 

23 squared away.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
292 

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: And we'll go 

2 from there. If not, I'll take a motion to 

3 adjourn.

4 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I second that 

5 one.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. We're 

7 good.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. Very good. 

9 We're adjourned. And thank you, everybody, 

10 for all the hard work that went into this.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: Thanks a lot.

12 MR. KATZ: And today. Take care. 

13 Bye, bye.

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Thank you, 

15 everybody.

16 (Whereupon, the meeting in the 

17 above-entitled matter was adjourned at 3:27 

18 p.m.)

19

20

21

22

23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
293 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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