1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

WORK GROUP ON FERNALD

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

APRIL 15, 2014

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened 

telephonically at 10:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight 

Time, Bradley P. Clawson, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Chairman

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

BOB BARTON, SC&A

HANS BEHLING, SC&A

HARRY CHMELYNSKI, SC&A

LOU DOLL

DEKEELY HARTSFIELD, HHS

DAN HENNEKES

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

KAREN KENT, ORAU Team

JOYCE LIPSZTEIN, SC&A

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

MARK ROLFES, DCAS

MATT SMITH, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 10:05 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory Board 

4 on Radiation and Worker Health, Fernald Work 

5 Group. Our meeting today is going to be 

6 relatively brief, a couple of hours or less 

7 probably. 

8 The agenda for the meeting should be 

9 posted on the NIOSH website. I don’t believe 

10 there’s other materials posted there. There’s 

11 a matrix on the status of the Site Profile 

12 issues, but it was only PA-, Privacy 

13 Act-cleared yesterday and it can’t be posted in 

14 time, so that’ll get posted for everyone who’s 

15 interested and, the public who might be on the 

16 line, that’ll be posted as soon as it can be, 

17 but not today. Probably tomorrow. So, I 

18 apologize about that.

19 So, let’s get started with roll 

20 call, beginning with Board Members. We’re 

21 speaking about a site so please speak to 

22 conflict of interest for all Board Members, and 
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Agency, and related staff when we run through 

2 roll call. And let’s go with Board Members.

3 (Roll Call.)

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you. So, 

5 that’s it for me. Brad, it’s your call.

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Thank you. I 

7 appreciate that, Lou. I appreciate you taking 

8 the time to call in and talk with us. 

9 I guess, first of all, one of the 

10 most important things that this call originally 

11 started out for was to be able to go over this, 

12 the letter that had been written on this. And 

13 I appreciate you sending this in. You’ve 

14 brought up some very interesting points, so 

15 what I’d like to do is start out, first of all, 

16 and discuss this letter.

17 John Stiver, I believe you have done 

18 some background work to be able to check into 

19 this. And I guess, John, I’d kind of just like 

20 a little sound bite, or whoever looked into it. 

21 MR. STIVER: Okay. Can you all see 

22 the letter that’s up on the Live Meeting screen?
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Yes, John, we can all see 

2 it, although it’s in handwriting.

3 MR. STIVER: Right. I’ll just kind of 

4 paraphrase. Mr. Doll can certainly jump in at 

5 any time. But, basically, what the problem that 

6 was identified was that, as you recall, last 

7 summer at the Idaho Work Group, not Work Group 

8 but Board meeting, an SEC Class was added for 

9 the -- all subcontractors at Fernald from 

10 essentially the inception of operations in 1951 

11 to 1983. And the basis for this was that the 

12 uranium bioassay worker model for Fernald did 

13 not include any subcontractor data prior to 

14 1986. And NIOSH had gone out in the interim and 

15 found about 940 hard copy records.

16 Just let me kind of back up a little 

17 bit as sort of a basis of the SEC just to kind 

18 of refresh everybody’s mind. And those records 

19 covered a period of time, several different 

20 years starting in 1969, there were some years 

21 in the >70s, and then most of the data were in 

22 early to mid-1980s. And we were tasked to take 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a look at this data to see if, indeed, the 

2 coworker model would be bounding for these 

3 subcontractors based on -- this is really kind 

4 of a weight of the evidence argument. I mean, 

5 there really wasn’t enough data for the early 

6 years to make this comparison, but we kind of 

7 looked at the data, and we picked out -- and 

8 something just jumped right off the page. 

9 In 1969 there was a group of 

10 subcontractor workers from Deutsch & Sons, I 

11 believe. They came in for about a four-month job 

12 where they were pulling out some contaminated 

13 equipment, and there was some -- evidently, 

14 there was some exposure during this time. And 

15 we went through and calculated potential 

16 intakes for these workers based on different 

17 assumptions and periods of intake and so forth, 

18 and it was determined that even under the most 

19 favorable circumstances of the coworker model 

even in the 95th 20 percentile would indeed not be 

21 bounding for this subgroup of workers. And 

22 based on that, and the fact that there was 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 essentially no data for the early years, from 

2 1951 up through 1968, the Board decided to grant 

3 an SEC for the subcontractors. 

4 And then fast forward here until, I 

5 believe in February, Mr. Doll sent in this 

6 letter and he says well, wait a second now. 

7 National Lead of Ohio, which had this spotty 

8 record for health and safety concerns, you 

9 know, during their tenure had the contract up 

10 through 1985, so why is it that we’re 

11 terminating the SEC in 1983 and not actually 

12 including those last two years that was 

13 contracted in >84 and >85. 

14 And the reason for this, in my mind, 

15 correct me if I’m wrong, but NIOSH had put forth 

16 a White Paper about this time last year, maybe 

17 a little bit later. I think it was in June, and 

18 it was by Gene Potter. And I can pull this up 

19 really quick. Let me put it up for everybody to 

20 see. I can get back here. Here we go. 

21 And this table, if you all see this, 

22 Table 1 has a series of years, >69. These are 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the years that the hard copy data exists for 

2 subcontractors, Type 50 data which are 

3 essentially non-routine bioassay samples. And 

4 NIOSH posited that, you know, they agreed that 

5 there’s a paucity of data in the early years, 

6 but they thought that possibly they might be 

7 able to build a separate subcontractor coworker 

8 model based on the hard copy records for 1984 

9 and 1985. So, as kind of a weight of evidence 

10 argument, we never really were tasked to look 

11 into these data in detail, but you can see there 

12 based on the number of individuals and the 

13 results, you can see that starting in >84, or 

14 about >84, >85 and >86, remember 1986 is the 

15 year when the new contractor came in, new M&O 

16 contractor, which was Westinghouse, and they 

17 instituted sweeping improvements in processes 

18 and so forth for radiological health and 

19 safety. 

20 So, you can see in 1986, the data are 

21 somewhat similar to >84 and >85 in terms of the 

22 number of individuals covered in the samples 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 per individual. So, based on that kind of weight 

2 of evidence argument, the Work Group and the 

3 Board decided that, you know, there’s probably 

4 enough data here for NIOSH to go ahead and build 

5 a separate coworker model for those two years, 

6 and that was really the basis for the cutoff in 

7 1983.

8 And as a result of Mr. Doll’s 

9 letter, we were tasked, SC&A was tasked to go 

10 and take a closer look at the data set for >84 

11 and >85, and look at the usual things that we 

12 evaluate in terms of adequacy and completeness 

13 of the data. And Bob Barton and Joyce Lipsztein 

14 looked respectively at the completeness and 

15 adequacy aspects of the data. And I guess our 

16 big concern, and Bob is going to take over and 

17 talk about the details here in a minute, of 

18 completeness, but our main concern was that I 

19 think there’s about 12 or 13, I think 12 

20 subcontractor groups were identified by NIOSH 

21 in this data set during this time period, and 

22 the vast majority, 83 percent come from Rust 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Engineering and Legge. And then there’s a 

2 smattering of samples for some of these others. 

3 Bob started digging into the 

4 records and found that, you know, there’s 

5 actually closer to about 50 different 

6 subcontracting companies that were active 

7 during the 1984-1985 time period. So, the 

8 question in our mind is well, you know, there’s 

9 a couple of different explanations for this. 

10 You know, Rust could be subsuming these other 

11 subcontractors into their contractors, using 

12 their contract vehicle to bring in people as 

13 needed, and they may be counted as Rust 

14 employees where, in fact, they may be working 

15 for one of these other subcontractors.

16 Another possibility is that, you 

17 know, these people just weren’t monitored, and 

18 they may have not been monitored for good 

19 reason. It could be that, you know, by this time 

20 when the awareness was becoming public about 

21 some of the problems at Fernald, and just in 

22 general with radiological safety, there was 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 more of an interest in being more comprehensive 

2 in monitoring than in the early years. And, you 

3 know, from the health physicist standpoint, 

4 certainly the people who they believed are 

5 going to have the higher exposures are going to 

6 be the ones that they’re going to make sure get 

7 monitored. So, it may be that the unmonitored 

8 workers were unmonitored for a good reason. 

9 And a third possibility is that 

10 maybe there are a significant proportion of 

11 workers in these unmonitored firms that are 

12 just not included, so then it becomes a 

13 situation where, do we have -- are these kind 

14 of random exclusions, or is there some 

15 systematic bias that certain subcontract firms 

16 are not represented in the data, in which case 

17 we have a completeness problem. 

18 But, Bob, if you’d like to take over 

19 and maybe talk about a little bit more of the 

20 details in completeness, it would be a good time 

21 to do that now. 

22 MR. BARTON: Sure, John. Let me see 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 if I can highjack this thing from you.

2 MR. STIVER: Okay.

3 MR. BARTON: Okay. See if this works. 

4 Okay, can everybody see this table in front of 

5 you?

6 MR. STIVER: I can see it fine, Bob.

7 MR. BARTON: Okay. So, what we have 

8 here on the far left column were the 

9 subcontractors that were actually in the 

10 captured data that NIOSH found in these 

11 urinalysis request cards. And as you can see, 

12 there are about 13 entries, though one of them 

13 is unknown, so we don’t really know what those 

14 represent. But the striking thing we saw right 

15 off the bat was the very high proportion of the 

16 data that is associated with really only two 

17 subcontractors, that’s Rust Engineering up 

18 here, and Legge.

19 In 1984 it’s fairly evenly split 

20 between Rust Engineering and Legge, but when 

21 you get into 1985 there’s nothing for Legge, and 

22 as you can see, nearly 97 percent of the data 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in 1985 was labeled as Rust Engineering. And if 

2 you follow that and combine it for both years, 

3 you can see that between those two 

4 subcontracting firms, I mean, if you add these 

5 up you’re getting close to 95 percent of the 

6 data available. That’s just between two firms. 

7 So as John said, that kind of -- you know, it 

8 begs the question, okay, why are we seeing this?

9 Is this a naming convention, or is this because 

10 these other subcontractors we see here didn’t 

11 really have the exposure potential so weren’t 

12 included in the program?

13 So, one of the things we did is we 

14 tried to get a handle on, well, how many 

15 subcontracting firms might there actually be 

16 operating at the site? And one of the references 

17 we found, and I’m going to scroll down here, and 

18 this is SRDB Ref 99119. And you can see, I mean, 

19 the list goes on. We have the contract numbers 

20 here, and these are the relevant start and end 

21 times related to this time period. 

22 A lot of these subcontractors had 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 other periods where they’re under NLO 

2 subcontracts but I didn’t include those since 

3 it’s not really relevant to the discussion of 

4 these years in question. And as I scroll down 

5 here, you can see there are a lot of them. And 

6 here’s Legge, here’s Rust but, I mean, you have 

7 all these other types of subcontractors. And in 

8 addition to this reference right here, the 

9 99119, just in the NIOSH data set we have these 

10 additional ones that actually weren’t included 

11 in that reference. You can see Johnson Controls 

12 and Martin-Marietta, William Kraemer & Sons. 

13 And then we cite another one that was just in 

14 the claimant files themselves, D&J Electric, 

15 though this may be more in the 1990s. I was not 

16 able to actually put dates of start and end 

17 terms of the contracts for these. And then the 

18 final reference here, this Ref ID 3031, has a 

19 few more that weren’t included in that 

20 original, what’s called the comprehensive 

21 list. And what Ref 3031 was, was actually a 

22 release of in vivo records for workers who were 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 involved with these subcontractors. 

2 And, actually, that reference is 

3 rather interesting. Let me see if I can put that 

4 up there. Okay. And this actually has the names 

5 of the workers who were involved in the in vivo 

6 program, presumably. You can see this was the 

7 release of subcontractor in vivo files, and 

8 they were basically mailing those results out 

9 to people. And this is dated -- okay, that says 

10 June 1985. It’s stamped August, I guess 20 

11 something, 1985. But as you can see here, the 

12 number of individuals in these different 

13 subcontractors, sometimes it’s only one, but 

14 some of them have quite a few. And I’m going to 

15 keep scrolling down here until you see Rust 

16 Engineering. And you see Rust Engineering has 

17 the longest list, but I wouldn’t say that that 

18 list right there, I don’t know how many people 

19 it is actually, is actually comparable to some 

20 of these other lists. For example, I guess 

21 Mobile Chemical, I mean, that’s a pretty long 

22 list that’s comparable to Rust. And that’s the 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 end of that document. 

2 But I guess what it boils down to 

3 here is we’re kind of scratching our heads 

4 because the question of completeness is, do you 

5 have a representative sample; do you have 

6 enough information about the dirty jobs and 

7 what exposure potential was like for 

8 subcontractors to be able to use that data to 

9 bound the intake estimates for those groups of 

10 workers. And when we see that such a large 

11 proportion sort of related to just these two 

12 subcontractors, we were kind of like, huh, you 

13 know, is there a problem. Is there what we would 

14 call a systemic not exemption but are you 

15 reducing people out because they were employed 

16 by different subcontractors, or was it one of 

17 the other reasons that John Stiver said at the 

18 beginning that maybe it was a naming convention 

19 or some other explanation? 

20 So, that was really our main concern 

21 from an SEC perspective related to 

22 completeness. And I guess I’d like to stop there 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and kind of get DCAS and ORAU’s impression, and 

2 if they have other information that might sort 

3 of alleviate that concern.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Bob, this is Stu 

5 Hinnefeld. I’m curious if you pursued further 

6 and found the reference, you know, this last 

7 document you showed that contains in vivo 

8 results from what are called subcontractors. At 

9 the top of the letter there is a reference to 

10 an earlier letter from the DOE Site Manager to 

11 the NLO manager, president. Did you find that 

12 reference to find out why NLO compiled this 

13 list?

14 MR. BARTON: I did not find that. It 

15 could quite possibly be in the SRDB but I didn’t 

16 find it. I don’t know if maybe some of you --

17 do you know what the contents of that letter is?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t. I’m curious 

19 about why NLO, they -- it would appear to me 

20 from the contents of the letter that the 

21 reference asked NLO to do something. And in 

22 response, NLO compiled this list. And the 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reason I ask that, the long list that you showed 

2 besides Rust Engineering was Mobil Chemical. 

3 Mobile Chemical was a neighbor, and Mobile 

4 Chemical’s well was contaminated. And this, I 

5 believe, was probably about the time the 

6 contaminated wells were identified, or close 

7 after, something like that. It’s quite 

8 possible. And I don’t -- I won’t swear to times 

9 or I don’t know when this happened, but there 

10 was a time when the Mobile counter was brought 

11 to Fernald to count because of concerns about 

12 the environmental revelations that were made. 

13 But that may not have been this period. That may 

14 have been a different period.

15 I am very puzzled by Mobile Chemical 

16 being referred to as a contractor because they 

17 were a neighbor, and I suspect because of the 

18 long number of people there, they were counted 

19 because the water, their well had been 

20 contaminated for a while before it was even 

21 identified as contaminated. 

22 MR. BARTON: Okay. Well, I mean, that 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 certainly sounds reasonable for Mobile 

2 Chemical. I guess our concern still stands of 

3 just such a large proportion that are really 

4 related to – it’s mostly Rust Engineering, I 

5 mean, 97 percent of the results in 1985 were 

6 Rust Engineering’s --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Did you find any 

8 results about the relative number of employees 

9 that these contractors provided to Fernald?

10 MR. BARTON: No, I did not, and I’m 

11 not sure if that information is readily 

12 available. We certainly did look for it. And 

13 that’s one of the things we wanted to get more 

14 information from you about. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Lou and Stan might 

16 know more about Rust Engineering’s operations, 

17 but certainly Rust Engineering provided a great 

18 deal of the contract, subcontract work for many 

19 years at Fernald, so I think it would be 

20 reasonable to assume that they had a large 

21 number of workers there so, naturally, most of 

22 the samples would come from them.
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I think they quite often got the 

2 work in the plant. I think there were 

3 subcontractors who performed work that was not 

4 in a radiological area and you wouldn’t expect 

5 to monitor them, so I B- but to be honest, I 

6 can’t go down this list of contractors and tell 

7 you what they did.

8 MR. BARTON: Sure, and I understand 

9 that. And that’s one of the explanations that 

10 John Stiver posited, is that you’ve got 

11 subcontractors who simply weren’t in the 

12 radiological areas. And I think that’s a 

13 reasonable argument. I think it B- you know, 

14 obviously, it needs to be fleshed out a little 

15 bit more either via interviews, or if we can 

16 find official documents about how many workers 

17 were sent from these different subcontractors, 

18 and some indication of what they were doing 

19 would go a long way to alleviate our concerns. 

20 But I think it’s a question that needs to be 

21 posed and answered, you know, a referenced 

22 answer that needs to be backed up. 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: This is John. I’d just 

2 kind of second what Bob is saying. I think at 

3 this point we’re kind of in a situation where 

4 we’re sort of left with a cold trail. You know, 

5 how many of these people B- first of all, how 

6 many of these companies actually employed X 

7 number of people, what fraction of the total 

8 might they be, what types of work were they 

9 involved in? I mean, the real problem we’re 

10 grappling with is whether there might be some 

11 systematic exclusion of people who could have 

12 been potentially exposed, and that’s kind of 

13 where we’re stuck right now. So, at least in my 

14 mind I think this would be maybe a question for 

15 Stu and Mark to pursue and maybe come back with 

16 B- see what they could find. 

17 MR. BARTON: You know, one thing we 

18 had thought of possibly doing would be to, you 

19 know, look at >86 and >87, maybe those years 

20 when Westinghouse took over and had a better set 

21 of records. And just take a look at that, see 

22 if we could identify for those years, you know, 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 assuming that they have that kind of -- those 

2 records are available and, you know, you could 

3 kind of back-extrapolate assuming that the mix 

4 really didn’t change, you know, over that two 

5 to three year period, and see how many are still 

6 B- companies are still representative. And, if 

7 so, you might get a handle on the number of 

8 individuals. That’s kind of where we’re stuck 

9 right now.

10 DR. LIPSZTEIN: May I complete just 

11 one thing, just completing what Bob said? He 

12 made before the Rust workers, they were 

13 monitored all year round. All the other 

14 workers, including the Legge workers, they were 

15 monitored for just a short period of time. For 

16 example, Legge workers, they were only 

17 monitored in July and August. And all their 

18 monitoring, there were 23 workers that were 

19 monitored, and they were monitored many times 

20 so it looked like a follow-up of some work they 

21 were doing. And all of the samples are late 

22 >50s, so probably there was some work, special 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 work they were doing, and they were followed.

2 And all the other workers say like from the 

3 other companies that is not Rust, they were 

4 monitored in a specific month. They were not 

5 monitored all year round. There were specific 

6 dates that people were monitored. And the in 

7 vivo data that Bob was talking about, there is 

8 one document which is historic bioassay 

9 monitoring, in vivo monitoring. They had some 

10 results for the Mobile workers and for other 

11 subcontractors. All those results were taken 

12 between December >84 and January >85. And all 

13 the in vivo results were available. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Joyce, can you 

15 describe that document a little more? Do you 

16 have like a B- do we have an SRDB and is there 

17 a reference ID?

18 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, there is. Let me 

19 look for it and I’ll tell you in one second. 

20 Okay. 

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: This is Brad, 

22 Stu. While she’s looking that up, it sounds like 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 all these other ones had their birthday samples 

2 like what we’ve seen through the rest of 

3 Fernald.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, no, I don’t 

5 think there were very many birthday samples 

6 except for people who were monitored once a year 

7 on it, because they only got monitored at their 

8 annual physical. They were essentially 

9 considered unexposed, and I don’t know if they 

10 had it on their birthday, but they were 

11 monitored once a year at their annual physical. 

12 The people who were considered exposed were 

13 monitored either monthly or quarterly at 

14 Fernald. 

15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: What year would 

16 have that started?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don’t know 

18 about construction workers, but for in-house 

19 C-- well, I think the construction worker 

20 sampling started, I mean, from the records we 

21 see it started in earnest in late >83. Now, the 

22 argument B- I’m not arguing with the point that 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 well, there were these other companies, so we 

2 still B- I understand we need to address that 

3 issue. But for the annual samples that were 

4 taken, were taken for people who were not 

5 considered to be exposed, and it was taken at 

6 the time of their annual physical. And I think 

7 maybe they continued the annual bioassay after 

8 they discontinued the physical, but I don’t 

9 recall if that’s true or not. 

10 Now, to the point of a certain 

11 company being sampled within a couple of 

12 months, or within one month, that aligns 

13 exactly with what you would expect for a company 

14 that would come in for a construction job that 

15 took a couple of months, or they come in for some 

16 contract work that took a month. So, to me, 

17 there’s no particular detriment to the fact 

18 that the company wasn’t sampled all year long 

19 when we know that Rust was.

20 To me, the set of data that you 

21 presented is exactly consistent with Fernald’s 

22 start of awakening in late >83 to the fact that 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there are these construction workers that are 

2 working in our production area; we should be 

3 bioassaying and monitoring them, or the fact 

4 that actual construction work really got going 

5 in B- I don’t think this is true. I think 

6 actually there was construction work going 

7 before late >83, but at some point -- you know, 

8 the data that we have is consistent with a view 

9 that Fernald sort of work up that gee, we ought 

10 to be monitoring these construction workers 

11 that are working in the contaminated area and 

12 started to sample the ones who did.

13 Now, we’ll pursue what we can about 

14 what these other companies, why they weren’t 

15 sampled. I think you’ll probably find that 

16 we’ll be hard-pressed to ever find a head count 

17 for one of these subcontractors, and have to see 

18 if we can make some judgments based on >86 and 

19 >87 data, or maybe some other lines of pursuit, 

20 maybe some interviews or something. 

21 DR. LIPSZTEIN: The reference is 

22 094407.
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: 094407?

2 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes, it is in vivo 

3 radiation monitoring historic report. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, thank you.

5 DR. LIPSZTEIN: And you’ll see that 

6 they have monitored in December and January. 

7 In December mostly were people, were workers 

8 and people that lived in the area, and in 

9 January also they were mixed, but mostly the 

10 subcontractors. But it’s the same, it 

11 continues, looks like they were doing in vivo 

12 monitoring for all workers and people that live 

13 in the area at the end of December and in the 

14 first two weeks of January. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, thank you.

16 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Right.

17 MR. STIVER: Joyce, this time might 

18 be good for you to kind of talk a little bit more 

19 about the exposure potential you saw among the 

20 Rust versus, I think it was Legge and some of 

21 the other B22 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Okay.
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: -- contractors. If you 

2 look at Potter’s paper, there towards the end, 

3 he has some plots that show that, I think it was 

4 1985 the subcontractors weren’t a lot 

5 different, not statistically different from 

6 the subcontractors, but they were in >84. And 

7 Joyce identified the reason for that, and maybe 

8 you could talk a little bit about that.

9 DR. LIPSZTEIN: Yes. In >84, as Bob 

10 has shown, there were a lot of samples from 

11 Legge workers, and those samples were all from 

12 some particular B- I don’t know if it was an 

13 incident, if it was special sampling because of 

14 special work, so they were only monitored in 

15 July and August, and it started with a very high 

monitoring result on the 3rd 16 of July for most 

17 of the B- many of the workers, and then there 

18 was a follow-up of those results.

19 And if you make a graph with the 

20 results, you’ll see there is a big peak on 

August B- I’m sorry, on July 3rd 21 . From those 

22 Legge workers, only three workers were only 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 monitored once and had a low excretion rate. 

2 Most of the others had high excretion rate, and 

3 nine of them had very high excretion rate, so 

4 there is, like, something different on this 

5 portion. And then there is the four workers that 

6 were involved in one accident that was 

7 registered. There is a description of the 

8 accident. We found a description in one 

9 document of an accident that occurred on the 

26th 10 of July, and that involved workers from 

11 Langdon & Johnson. So, they were monitored only 

12 once on the day of the accident, and the two 

13 Langdon workers had high excretion rates. All 

14 the others, most of them, if you take out Legge 

15 and those Langdon & Johnson, all of them had low 

16 excretion rates. 

17 So, we’ll see you’ll have a 

18 distribution of low excretion rates with two 

19 peaks, one peak due to this, I don’t know, 

20 special work or incident from Legge workers, 

21 and with those four workers that were involved 

in the 26th 22 of July accident. So, it looks like 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 two different B- I don’t know, it would be two 

2 different distributions. That would be what 

3 B- I don’t know if the Legge workers that were 

4 only monitored in July, they can fit into the 

5 Rust workers distribution because they look 

6 like, you know, they were doing something else, 

7 and that’s why you have this peak. 

8 And if you look at the workers 

9 results, the regular workers results, they were 

10 all low like Rust. The distribution is similar 

11 to the Rust workers, so I don’t know if the 

12 coworker model should be just for Rust workers 

13 or it would encompass everything. I don’t know. 

14 I think it’s more for statistics for Harry than 

15 for me. I just observed that. Maybe Harry can 

16 talk a little bit about it. 

17 DR. CHMELYNSKI: I’m sorry, I 

18 haven’t really looked at that data in any depth. 

19 It does B- it looks interesting, though. We 

20 would like to look at it. 

21 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver, if 

22 I could just jump in for a second. You know, I 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 think this illustrates the whole idea that, you 

2 know, here we have groups of subcontractors 

3 going in, some are, you know, like pavers and 

4 people like that who are not really B- wouldn’t 

5 expect to have any radiation exposure. But you 

6 have these others, we have the Deutsch group, 

7 we’ve got Rust, we’ve got Legge, and some others 

8 that we don’t have monitoring data for, and I 

9 just, in my mind, to feel comfortable that we 

10 have a -- can actually build a coworker model 

11 here for a situation where you have different 

12 groups of workers coming in doing different 

13 jobs, so it’s not like you have a bunch of guys 

14 on a factory floor doing the same thing over and 

15 over again, and you have like a kind of a 

16 homogeneous cohort.

17 In this situation you have lots of 

18 different cohorts, so it seems like you’re 

19 throwing an additional element of uncertainty 

20 in there that you really need to be careful that 

21 you’re capturing all the potential, you know, 

22 exposures, or at least enough of them, enough 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of the different types to where another guy 

2 comes along and he doesn’t have any monitoring 

3 data, and you don’t really know what he did that 

4 you could be reasonably confident that you 

5 could be able to bound his dose. Now, this is 

6 a situation we find all the time. It really gets 

7 to the whole heart of adequacy and 

8 completeness. 

9 And if those few Legge workers had 

10 not had those data submitted, you know, they 

11 would appear to be identical for statistical 

12 purposes with the Rust workers, and with the 

13 NLO workers during that period of time. So, it’s 

14 just very important that we be confident that 

15 we have a data set that encompasses B- is 

16 complete enough to encompass enough of the 

17 exposures that did occur that we could be 

18 confident in bracketing and bounding an 

19 exposure for the unmonitored workers.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu 

21 Hinnefeld. I have a question about what’s being 

22 shared on the screen right now. It appears to 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be B- it appears, I guess, to be an Excel 

2 spreadsheet that has several tabs, and the tab 

3 we’re seeing is B4 MR. BARTON: That’s the claimant’s 

5 name. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

7 MR. BARTON: Yes. Joyce had 

8 mentioned this July, late July incident. And as 

9 we can see, now the RSV workers were redacted, 

10 obviously, from the claimant file, but this is 

11 a job that was happening. We don’t know when it 

12 started, but they were up on the Plant 5 roof 

13 which was over the remelt area and says, you 

14 know, black oxide contamination on surfaces 

15 measuring up to 5 mR per hour. And the evaluator 

16 who wrote this sort of mental off -- said it’s 

17 very likely that these very high samples that 

18 we see, I mean, they’re taken on the same day. 

19 You have a marked increase, could have been from 

20 contaminated samples, but at the same time, and 

21 this is a direct quote, it’s also possible that 

22 these employees might not have worn their 
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 respirators properly. And then this last 

2 paragraph, sort of concluding paragraph says, 

3 we need to increase our surveillance so that 

4 this doesn’t occur in the future in order to 

5 avoid bad publicity or worse from the general 

6 public which is more and more apprehensive 

7 about radiation exposure in NLO employees. And 

8 it mentions that the wife of one of these 

9 employees had called to inquire about her 

10 husband’s sample.

11 And this is one of those things, and 

12 I’d like to note this, as well, it shows that 

13 Langdon Hughes and Johnson Controls which were 

14 in their data set were subcontractors to Rust 

15 Engineering. Now, one of the possibilities we 

16 outlined was that we see all these Rust samples 

17 because perhaps a lot of these other 

18 subcontractors were, indeed, 

19 sub-subcontractors to Rust. But then this 

20 incident report sort of belies that because 

21 even though they were subcontractors to Rust 

22 Engineering, when they submitted their urine 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bioassay cards it didn’t say Rust Engineering 

2 on it. It said their actual subcontractors, 

3 which in this case were Langdon Hughes and 

4 Johnson Controls. 

5 Since Joyce had mentioned that 

6 incident, I wanted to bring it up. Again, this 

7 is B- and there was no follow-up samples 

8 because, essentially, the work was done and 

9 they were gone, so they couldn’t call them back, 

10 or didn’t want to call them back for follow-ups. 

11 I guess this is a case where it sort 

12 of gives me pause that, you know, you have the 

13 Langdon Hughes which only had six samples in 

14 1984, four of them taken on this day. And I know 

15 the other Langdon Hughes worker here is 

16 redacted, but I can tell you his samples are 

17 actually even higher than the ones being shown. 

18 So, again, it B- we sort of have to flesh this 

19 out that we did capture the correct workers and 

20 that perhaps these short-term projects, which 

21 we really don’t know how long this one went on, 

22 we only know when it ended, were actually being 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 captured by the bioassay program.

2 Now, in the case of Legge, it seems 

3 that they were certainly paying close attention 

4 to on that particular subcontractor, but I 

5 think we need to come to some sort of weight of 

6 evidence argument that these other ones who 

7 could have potentially been out there doing 

8 short-term demolition, you know, HVAC work, 

9 something that could have had a high exposure 

10 potential but over a short term are captured 

11 here so that we can use that data to be able to 

12 adequately bound the exposure potential to 

13 people who don’t have data.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Back to my 

15 original question, though, I mean, the --

16 what’s being shared on the screen appears to be 

17 a product that was prepared for this Work Group 

18 meeting. Is that right?

19 MR. BARTON: Yes. Joyce had 

20 mentioned that incident when she was talking 

21 about Legge, and also this Langdon Hughes 

22 incident, so I thought I’d throw it up there so 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 people could see what we’re actually referring 

2 to. This is sort of the post-incident report. 

3 In fact, it’s a termination sample report that 

4 they had these very high samples which they 

5 sampled them twice on the same day because the 

6 first time they sampled them they got a very 

7 high result, they brought them back in and they 

8 were even higher at the end of their shift. I 

9 guess they took one at noon, and then again at 

10 4:30. 

11 So, I wanted to kind of illustrate 

12 further that, one, I don’t think we can be sure 

13 that we don’t see the other subcontractors 

14 listed in the data because they’re subsumed 

15 under Rust Engineering, because in this case 

16 they weren’t. Now, this may be the exception 

17 rather than the rule, but it is a piece of 

18 evidence. And, also, it shows that some of these 

19 other subcontracting firms that are really not 

20 that well represented in the data set could have 

21 had a high potential for short-term acute 

22 intakes, which may or may not have been 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 captured. And I think that’s something we have 

2 to convince ourselves that we do have a 

3 representative sample, that we caught those 

4 high-risk jobs, and that we can, indeed, use all 

5 this data to adequately bound the exposure 

6 potential of the subs.

7 MR. STIVER: This is kind of an 

8 uncomfortable silence here. This is Stiver. I 

9 guess now we’re kind of grappling with where to

10 go from here. And Stu had mentioned kind of 

11 going back and maybe see if you guys could flesh 

12 out with a little bit more certainty some of 

13 these under-represented or non-monitored 

14 subcontracting firms who were actually doing 

15 B- we might be able to kind of chart a path 

16 forward from here. 

17 DR. BEHLING: John, this is Hans. I 

18 want to ask a question, maybe everyone else 

19 knows the answer to this, but I was just looking 

20 at the data yesterday, so one of the questions 

21 I had, when you look at the sample type and you 

22 see 5-O, 5-9, 5-R, what do those sample codes 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mean? Are they start of shift, end of shift, 

2 special, routine bioassays? It would be very 

3 helpful to have an understanding of what some 

4 of these codes mean because I looked at them and 

5 some of the highest codes have B- or the highest 

6 bioassay data values represent codes that are 

7 consistently 5-9. And I assume that might be end 

8 of shift, and they would be very different from 

9 the beginning of shift versus routine, also 

10 versus special where you may have a respiratory 

11 device failure and so forth. So, do we have a 

12 full understanding of what these sample codes 

13 represent?

14 MR. BARTON: Hans, I can answer that.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I can respond on 

16 that, too, if you want.

17 MR. BARTON: Sure. Go ahead, Stu.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: It seems like most 

19 subcontractor samples received a first digit of 

20 a 5 because it looks like the convention was 

21 that the number B- a subcontractor sample was 

22 considered a special sample no matter -- even 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 though some of them seem to have been kind of 

2 taken on a routine basis. 

3 The second digit of the sample codes 

4 reflects the time during the shift when it was 

5 taken, so a 9 is B- if the second digit of the 

6 code is a 9, that is, in fact, an end of shift 

7 sample; 0 is the start of shift sample, and then 

8 if there is a 5 or a 6 that’s somewhere in the 

9 midday. Presumably, they had an 8-hour day so 

10 the beginning of the shift is 0, after the first 

11 hour is 1, and so on. But, normally, you’ll see 

12 either a 0 or a 9 there, although you will see 

13 some middle of the day shifts for the second 

14 digit. 

15 The first digit of the code, most 

16 subcontractors are going to be 5 because the 

17 convention was that even if you are sampling 

18 subcontractors regularly, that was still not a 

19 routine sample for your workers. 

20 For the workers at the site, 30 

21 C-- it would usually almost be a 30, a three 

22 zero, routine sample, a four zero would be an 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 incident sample was collected at the beginning 

2 of the shift, four nine would be an incident 

3 sample at the end of the shift. Twenty was, I 

4 believe, the annual, it was collected with 

5 their annual B- you had an annual physical, it 

6 was collected with your annual physical. And I 

7 believe a 10 may have been a pre-hire, I’m not 

8 sure. 

9 MR. BARTON: Okay. And just to add on 

10 to that, Stu, that the 5R, any time you see an 

11 R after that first number, essentially -- it 

12 doesn’t mean routine, it means essentially 

13 resample.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: That’s a resample, 

15 right. And that second digit R would B- that 

16 would have pertained no matter what the first 

17 digit was. R was a resample.

18 MR. BARTON: Correct.

19 DR. BEHLING: I did see one, in fact, 

20 it is the highest value I saw, 1100 micrograms 

21 per liter, and there the code says 90. It turned 

22 out to be the highest number that I looked at. 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can only C2 MR. BARTON: Yes, Hans, that’s 

3 actually the worker on this incident report. I 

4 don’t know if you have it in front of you but 

5 it’s a second worker who doesn’t have any data 

6 on this incident report because it was redacted 

7 for the claims files, but that was his, 

8 essentially, the second sample that day.

9 DR. BEHLING: Yes. I should mention 

10 our computer, our CDC computer has been sent 

11 back for updates so I don’t have access to what 

12 you’re looking at right now.

13 MR. BARTON: Yes, that highest 

14 sample was essentially the second gentleman 

15 from Langdon Hughes who was up there on the 

16 Plant 5, I guess in the rafters maybe or 

17 something like that over the remelt area, and 

18 he B- I guess the investigator said that, well, 

19 you know, I think it’s probably a contaminated 

20 sample but it could also be that they weren’t 

21 properly using their respirators in a 

22 high-exposure area. I mean, they looked at the 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 5 mR per hour from the uranium oxide that was 

2 present.

3 DR. BEHLING: Also, what can we 

4 conclude when we look at the comparison between 

5 5-0 and 5-9, meaning beginning of shift, end of 

6 shift? Does that suggest very strongly that the 

7 differences that we’re talking about are very 

8 highly soluble material that is inhaled and 

9 excreted very quickly?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. And I 

11 think regardless of the solubility of the 

12 intake there is going to be some rapid early 

13 clearance, so you’ll see that pretty 

14 significant difference regardless of the 

15 solubility of the intake. 

16 MS. KENT: This is Karen Kent. I just 

17 wanted to add that there is a very good 

18 reference ID that tells the specific sampling 

19 codes at Fernald, and that would be 4076. And 

20 it basically summarizes everything that Stu has 

21 just said. 

22 MR. BARTON: Right. I think we see, 
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 even in the years after Westinghouse took over, 

2 that subcontractors were still generally given 

3 that Type 50, or 5-9, or 5-6, whatever it may 

4 be, but along that 50 series designation, so we 

5 really can’t tell often if these are 

6 termination samples, higher samples, routine, 

7 because they’re all sort of subsumed under that 

8 special label. So, I’m not sure, well past, you 

9 know, the switch over from NLO to Westinghouse, 

10 whether that method continued or whether they 

11 actually switched them over to the other sample 

12 types more commonly seen with the NLO 

13 employees, or if that continued on. I really 

14 don’t know. But I know in the period we’re 

15 looking at they’re almost all Type 50 or Type 

16 40, which Type 40 is an incident sample.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. I 

18 have a question for John Stiver.

19 MR. STIVER: Okay.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: John, can you kind of 

21 summarize what SC&A believes they need to sort 

22 of crystalize a recommendation that your folks 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would have for the Work Group?

2 MR. STIVER: Yes. I think I kind of 

3 hit on that early on, and it’s really to get kind 

4 of a better sense for whether we have systematic 

5 exclusion of some of the subcontractor groups 

6 within the data set. Basically, it’s a 

7 representativeness issue. 

8 As it is now, we have B- like I said, 

9 there are about 12 different subcontractors. 

10 They’re identified in the 940 samples we used 

11 to B- proposing to use. And Bob has identified 

12 that there’s really about 50 different 

13 subcontractors that were active during that 

14 time period.

15 What we don’t have is a head count, 

16 and we don’t have any information on what those 

17 subcontractors were doing. So, it’s kind of 

18 leaving us in a place where we really can’t say 

19 that we have a complete representative data set 

20 that we could feel comfortable for using for, 

21 you know, to give a good sense that we’re really 

22 bounding all potential exposures.
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: But I didn’t B- I 

2 wasn’t sure, Stu, when you talked about this a 

3 little bit earlier whether you felt that it was 

4 likely that NIOSH would be able to find any 

5 additional helpful information, or is it you’re

6 feeling that what we have is what we have, and 

7 we need to make a decision?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I believe it 

9 B- what I said was it will be B- I think will 

10 be unlikely that we will find a head count per 

11 contractor. 

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. So, from your 

13 point of view what would the path forward be?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the -- one path 

15 would be what John suggested, is that to look 

16 in the years after Westinghouse took over in 

17 terms of company affiliation for the 

18 subcontractor samples for say >86 and >87, and 

19 see if you still see this predominance of Rust, 

20 and maybe one other. You know, you might have 

21 a company doing a project or something that gets 

22 sampled. So, one would be to do that.
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And then I don’t know what we can 

2 find out about the nature of the contracts. We 

3 could take a shot at finding contracts. I don’t 

4 know that we’ll be able to find contracts, 

5 because I suspect they didn’t have a very long 

6 retention time, and see what these companies 

7 were hired to do, at least some of them. 

8 So, I mean, we can poke around in the 

9 records, or get LM, Legacy Management, to poke 

10 around in the records a bit and see what we can 

11 do. And we could either come back and say we 

12 can’t find anything else, or here’s what we 

13 found, I guess would be a way to go.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I’m trying to 

15 get a feel and, Brad, maybe you can help me here, 

16 but I’m trying to get a feel for whether it would 

17 be productive to do what you just described or, 

18 you know, is it that needle in the haystack, or

19 what are we talking about in terms of effort and 

20 resources to, quote, poke around?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the first 

22 action which is to try to identify the company 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 affiliation for subcontractors once 

2 Westinghouse has taken over will B- I think 

3 we’ll know relatively quickly whether we could 

4 do that or not. It wouldn’t take just a ton of 

5 poking around. 

6 The other questions, until we 

7 approach Legacy Management, I guess I don’t 

8 have a good feel. We already may have some 

9 finding aids from Legacy Management that we 

10 would have to look at and see if their finding 

11 aids give us any comfort. So, I don’t B- I can’t 

12 really render an estimate today about the 

13 ability to find information that might be 

14 relevant. Although, like I said, just based on 

15 what I suspect was kept about these companies 

16 I would be surprised to find a head count per 

17 contractor, but I could be mistaken. 

18 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes. But, you 

19 know, I guess I’d have to B- this is Brad 

20 speaking. I guess I’d have to look at the whole 

21 thing at Fernald, where we’re already at into 

22 this right now with the SECs and everything 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that’s already done to this point right there. 

2 I guess I really don’t see it as very beneficial 

3 or anything else like that, and I think that we, 

4 you know B- I agree with you, Paul, that it 

5 could be searching for a needle in a haystack. 

6 You know, if we take the history of what Fernald 

7 already is, I think we stand a pretty good 

8 chance of not finding anything. I don’t think 

9 that it’s really worth us to be able to go that 

10 length. 

11 But, you know, we’re kind of in a 

12 situation here where we’ve already put into 

13 this what the SEC is and so the only way we’re 

14 going to be able to change this, I believe, and 

15 Ted, tell me if I’m wrong, is basically this has 

16 to come from NIOSH, there’s an 83.14 for that. 

17 MR. KATZ: Well, no, Brad. I mean, 

18 that’s not correct because it doesn’t have to 

19 come to an 83.14. You still have an open 

20 petition. I do think that the folks need to do 

21 due diligence on this matter first before the 

22 Board can render a judgment. And if Stu comes 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 back and says well, you know, this is an 

2 enormous amount of work and we’ll never know if 

3 it’ll be productive or not, and we really don’t 

4 want to go forward, at that point you know, you 

5 know, what you’re going to know. I think you 

6 have to take the first step and see B- explore 

7 the issue first.

8 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, you know, 

9 that’s fine. It’s just I’ve seen in a lot of 

10 other meetings that we’ve been into that then 

11 the whole other picture kind of changes around, 

12 and what benefits are we going to get from this 

13 if we put all this effort out there to be able 

14 to get it? You know, it’s a two-edged sword, so 

15 I guess it basically comes down to if NIOSH 

16 feels that they want to dive into this and be 

17 able to look at it, that’s, you know B- we’ll 

18 do due diligence, and we’ll see what we can come 

19 up with. 

20 But, you know, I think we also have 

21 to look at the history of this whole site, and 

22 what information we’ve already been able to get 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 out. And it hasn’t been that rosy, but we can 

2 proceed on with that, allow NIOSH to have their 

3 opportunity. But we do owe a time frame, too. 

4 We need to get something to them, to Lou Doll 

5 and them to be able to address this, kind of let 

6 them know where we’re headed at, what we’re 

7 going to do. So, I guess that comes over to Stu 

8 and, you know, basically where he wants to go. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is Stu, 

10 and I believe we are obliged to at least look 

11 B- to look at some extent, because as I look at 

12 the B13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, Stu, 

14 there’s no question.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: The information we 

16 have, you know, in front of us was largely the 

17 information we have when SC&A and the Work Group 

18 decided that, gee, there seems to be enough 

19 bioassay data here to make a coworker model for 

20 construction workers. If the reason why there 

21 wouldn’t be enough information would be if 

22 there was some exclusion of highly exposed 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 contractors from the sampling program, so I 

2 B- to me, I’m hard pressed to understand 

3 exactly what’s different now. The fact that 

4 most of the sample people came from a couple of 

5 contractors is consistent with the fact that 

6 most of the workers, or most of the radiological 

7 work came through those two contractors. And 

8 there’s, you know, while there’s no information 

9 that says that’s true, there’s no information 

10 that says that’s false. Sampling of a 

11 particular company for a short period of time 

12 with a contractor company coming in doing a 

13 specific project that takes a couple of months. 

14 So, the data that we see, to me, is just as 

15 consistent with a program that had an adequate 

16 monitoring program for construction workers 

17 starting in late >83 or in >84, as it is 

18 consistent with B- it’s just as consistent with 

19 that interpretation as it is with an 

20 interpretation that only a couple of companies 

21 were sampled. 

22 So, I guess at the very least we 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 should try to determine, if we can, without an 

2 overwhelming amount of effort what the company 

3 affiliation was for contractors during the 

4 first couple of years of Westinghouse’s tenure. 

5 And if there is B- and then maybe find out if 

6 there is some simple search that might give us 

7 more information about what these contracting 

8 companies did. But I would not propose a long 

9 and involved search, and long and involved 

10 research project, so I don’t have any more 

11 stomach for stretching this out a lot longer 

12 than anybody else does. 

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Stu, this is Ziemer 

14 again. I think what you just described, which 

15 is not an extensive effort, would address the 

16 due diligence issue, at least in my mind it 

17 would. 

18 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: This is Phil. 

19 I’ve got one thing to say about that, too. I 

20 don’t think we should spend a lot of time of that 

21 because you take something like Johnson 

22 Controls which they mentioned, this is a big 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 national corporation and they are exactly what 

2 they say. They B- pneumatic electrical 

3 controls of fans, motors, whatever, so they’re 

4 likely to be in any building on site. And, you 

5 know, I mean it B- you couldn’t really just say 

6 that, you know, well, they’re probably the only 

7 one in this building because someone like that 

8 is a contractor that likely went over the entire 

9 site, whereas like you pointed out, some of 

10 these other contractors may just come in and 

11 done a construction job that only was confined 

12 to one building. So, I mean, to spend a lot of 

13 time I don’t think is going to pay off. That’s 

14 just my opinion. 

15 MR. STIVER: This is John. I kind of 

16 agree with Paul’s summary. I think what Stu is 

17 proposing is kind of a focused effort, not a 

18 long-term research project. I think we all have 

19 had our fill of these grail quests in the past 

20 that we’ve been down, but I think that would 

21 certainly address the due diligence. And I 

22 don’t think B- at least in my mind it doesn’t 
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 seem like it would take that much time and 

2 effort to get a handle on whether they can 

3 identify the nature of some of these contracts, 

4 subcontractors. And, certainly, enough to look 

5 at the >86 and >87. 

6 MR. BARTON: Yes. John, this is Bob 

7 Barton. If I could jump in here and give a little 

8 bit more on the whole notion going to >86 and 

9 >87, because we do have B- NIOSH did compile 

10 some 1986 data, and I want to correct one 

11 inaccuracy there, and it’s the notion that the 

12 same number of samples were observed in 1986 as 

13 there were in 1984 and 1985. 

14 Essentially, in 1986 all that was 

15 compiled was the first six months of 1986, so 

16 B- and that was over 350 samples for just the 

17 first half, so logic dictates it’s probably 

18 that number at least, or maybe more if 

19 Westinghouse is still trying to, you know, 

20 break a shift in the latter half of that year.

21 Now, the other facet of that is this 

22 notion that we could ratio backwards. And I can 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 tell you that at least from the first half of 

2 1986, we see the same trend. It’s almost all 

3 Rust. Now there could have been construction 

4 projects in the second half that we haven’t seen 

5 yet that might change that, but to give some 

6 perspective, what we see in that first half of 

7 1986 is very similar to 1985 except for the 

8 actual physical number of samples that were 

9 taken, which is at least double in 1986 what it 

10 was in 1985. 

11 MR. STIVER: So what I’m hearing is 

12 that for the first half of 1986, at least, the 

13 representation is proportional. You’re not 

14 seeing any shift, any distortion in the 

15 contractors that are actually being sampled. 

16 MR. BARTON: No, I didn’t. And really 

17 it’s B- one possibility is that B- I mean, I 

18 guess I’ll pose this question. To what extent 

19 are we confident that these bioassay log books 

20 that we have are all there is? I mean, is it 

21 possible we have records that are located in a 

22 different document that hasn’t been captured 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 yet, or are we reasonably certain that this is 

2 what we have, this is what we have to use?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is Stu, 

4 and I’ll offer to that is that we are confident 

5 that additional searches won’t find more 

6 because we believe we’ve searched as much as we 

7 can. I won’t give the same level of confidence 

8 that that was all the samples that were ever 

9 taken on subcontractors. You know, there may 

10 have B- they may not have all been retained, 

11 because all B- what we looked at, what these 

12 records are, are xerox copies of cards, sort of 

13 like a computer punch card, that size, though 

14 they’re not computer punch cards, they’re 

15 handwritten and they’re legible. So, the xerox 

16 copies of cards, and each card contains one 

17 person’s name, sample result, sample date, and 

18 it will include the employer for a 

19 subcontractor. So, we’ve captured, I believe, 

20 everything we’re going to capture, but as to 

21 whether or not this was the entirety of samples 

22 that were collected during those years, I don’t 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 know that we would B- I would state the same 

2 level of confidence on that.

3 MR. BARTON: Yes. I’m kind of 

4 wondering to myself if maybe there’s a 

5 situation, I don’t know how you could ever prove 

6 this, where Rust as sort of the main 

7 subcontractor, I guess you could call it, their 

8 records were included with the NLO files 

9 because they were on site for maybe a little 

10 longer, maybe full years instead of these 

11 short, you know, months, two months, whatever 

12 it is projects, and that, you know, maybe -- I’m 

13 not sure, but maybe there’s data that’s 

14 missing. But, you know, like you said, 

15 reasonably confident that further searches 

16 aren’t going to turn it up, so we’re kind of left 

17 with B- kind of left in the dark. 

18 We don’t know that there isn’t data 

19 that’s missing here for some of these other 

20 subcontractors who could have been short term, 

21 but we don’t know, or we don’t feel that we’ll 

22 ever find it. Is that what I’m hearing?
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, what I 

2 intended to say is that I don’t think we will 

3 find B- be successful in additional searches 

4 because we’ve done the searches that we’ve been 

5 able to do, and we found what we could find. So, 

6 what I’m saying is I don’t think we’ll find 

7 B- we’ll be successful finding additional data 

8 with additional searches. 

9 I have B- and I’m not in a position 

10 to say that I’m 100 percent confident that we 

11 captured records of all the samples that were 

12 taken. But, again, unless there was some sort 

13 of systematic exclusion of highly exposed 

14 subcontractors, the fact that we may not have 

15 all the samples doesn’t really impugn the 

16 validity of a coworker approach. It would be 

17 only if highly exposed people were 

18 systematically excluded would there be an issue 

19 with the coworker approach. 

20 MR. STIVER: This is John, and in my 

21 mind I don’t see any other way to get a handle 

22 on it than to try to see if you can find some 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 more information that would shed light on the 

2 nature of the contracts for the unmonitored 

3 groups. And if that’s not possible, I don’t see 

4 that there is another way forward. 

5 MR. BARTON: You know, we did have 

6 that contract document from 1969, and that’s a 

7 long time ago, to have survived that long.

8 MR. STIVER: Yes, and I was thinking 

9 the same thing when we were talking about that. 

10 I mean, you know, there’s one from >69. Now is 

11 it just fortuitous that that happened to be 

12 retained in the records? Maybe there’s others 

13 for some of these other contractors, but it 

14 would be at least enough to kind of shed light 

15 on the nature of a good portion of them. I think 

16 at that point then NIOSH has done their due 

17 diligence. They’ve done what they can. 

18 They have a limited data set, and as 

19 Stu said, it’s what we have. It’s not everything 

20 that was ever taken, it’s what we have to work 

21 with. So, the question is, is it representative 

22 enough to build a coworker model. So, the only 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 thing that’s really left dangling is whether 

2 we have proportional representation for the 

3 exposed workers. And the only way to really get 

4 a handle on that is to get a better 

5 understanding of what the contracts entailed. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, again, my 

7 recollection is that Rust did the majority of 

8 the contracting, either directly or with -- and 

9 so it’s perfectly reasonable that the majority 

10 of the samples would come from Rust employees. 

11 A lot of the contracts were left for items that 

12 were not in the radiological area. I mean, some 

13 of the things under contract -- Cincinnati Gas 

14 & Electric was on there, I think there was a 

15 paving company on there. So, to me, it seems 

16 like we’re setting a pretty high standard for 

17 subcontractor, or for coworker models here when 

18 we are saying now not only do we have to have 

19 a pretty good set of bioassay samples for

20 coworkers, but we also now want to say that we 

21 have to find out what companies worked there and 

22 make sure that we have samples from all those 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 workers, even not knowing, necessarily, what 

2 those companies did. 

3 I really think that, you know, 

4 that’s a pretty severe task to say that just 

5 because you have bioassay data, you have to go 

6 through a lot of additional B- show a lot of 

7 additional evidence of things like that when 

8 there’s no particular evidence that the exposed 

9 people weren’t monitored. 

10 And, in fact, looking at some of 

11 these results, pretty clearly, I’m hoping the 

12 heavily exposed people were monitored because 

13 there are some really heavy results in here. So, 

14 to just look at the data, some of these results 

15 and say that somehow there were people even more 

16 highly exposed than these that were excluded 

17 from sampling or whose samples were lost for 

18 some reason, to me that’s a lot more of a stretch 

19 than saying that all recognized they should be 

20 monitoring construction workers who were 

21 working in the contamination area, and they 

22 started sampling. To me, that’s a far more 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 logical explanation than where we seem to be 

2 going. That’s just my opinion. 

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, this is 

4 Brad. I don’t think that we’re going to be able 

5 to solve this here. And you’re right that NIOSH 

6 needs to be able to have their opportunity 

7 there, so I guess we’ll just -- we’ll leave that 

8 to you, Stu, and we’ll just have to B- we’ll get 

9 a report back of which way we’re going to go and 

10 what we’re going to do. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I’ll provide 

12 information to everybody after we can sort of 

13 and have some idea about what we’re facing here.

14 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. And I just, 

15 you know, kind of went over the issue. And, you 

16 know, what you brought up, Stu is totally right, 

17 you know. As you were going into all these 

18 contractors and stuff, and the highly exposed 

19 ones and everything else, too, but you’ve also 

20 got to look at something else, too, and this 

21 kind of triggered when you were talking to me 

22 about this, you’ve got all these other 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 contractors in there. You also need to look at 

2 how many contractors was in there, and how many 

3 of them don’t have any samples at all, because 

4 you brought up the paving example, you know, 

5 paving right through the middle of Fernald. 

6 Now, I know the environmental map doesn’t show 

7 the contamination too much inside of Fernald, 

8 but outside of it, it does. So, there’s B- to 

9 tell you the truth, there were higher areas of 

10 exposure at Fernald, but I think the whole place 

11 was pretty dirty. So, you know, I understand B12 MR. HINNEFELD: Brad, maybe paving 

13 the process area, they likely were paving a 

14 contaminated area, but I can’t believe they 

15 were as heavily exposed as the people who were 

16 taking out the equipment and rebuilding things 

17 in those buildings, in those production 

18 buildings. 

19 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I understand. So, 

20 we’ll B- is there any issues, other Work Group 

21 members, NIOSH to be able to go off and look into 

22 this a little bit deeper? 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: I agree with you, 

2 Brad.

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Dr. Ziemer?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I think, again, 

5 we’re back to what we described as the due 

6 diligence, and it’s not B- it’s almost, as Stu 

7 described, what they would do, it will address 

8 the due diligence issue. It won’t be 

9 burdensome. It should not take an extensive 

10 period of time, and then we can make a final 

11 decision to move ahead on that basis. 

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. That being 

13 said, we can B- we’ll wait to hear what NIOSH 

14 has to say, and we’ll go from there. We’ll see 

15 what we can do on that. 

16 MR. DOLL: Hey, Brad?

17 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Yes?

18 MR. DOLL: Can I make one comment?

19 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Sure, go ahead. 

20 I’m sorry. 

21 MR. DOLL: It was discussed earlier 

22 about companies like Johnson Controls probably 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 wouldn’t be in the contaminated areas, and 

2 that’s not true because they would hire a 

3 specialty firm like Johnson to come in and do 

4 pneumatic work in some of these contaminated 

5 buildings. 

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think we all 

7 said they would be in contaminated areas, as I 

8 understood it. 

9 MR. DOLL: Yes, they would be. They 

10 would be all over that facility. 

11 COURT REPORTER: Is that Mr. Doll?

12 MR. DOLL: Yes, it is. Sorry. Yes, 

13 in early >80s we were sent down there for a 

14 four-day job with Johnson Controls when I was 

15 working for them, and we put in a pneumatic line 

16 to a knife gate over the top of B- in Plant 5 

17 over the top of where the B- I guess, the ingots 

18 and that came out, so I know, you know, there 

19 was black oxide all over the place because we 

20 had to run the stuff up in the steel. So, you 

21 know, I know they would bring in B- National 

22 Lead once in a while would bring in their own 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 subcontractors for some of this stuff, so just 

2 as a point of reference.

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, let me ask 

4 you a question. How many years did you say that 

5 you were out to Fernald?

6 MR. DOLL: I was out there earlier 

7 than 1983 for a while, for a little while with 

8 Johnson Controls, and then I was out there from 

9 about I think it was October of >83, and then 

10 was there most of the time all the way through 

11 2004. I was -- often I was gone for a short 

12 period of time and then back again. 

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. I was just 

14 trying to remember that. Okay, I appreciate 

15 your input there, Lou. I appreciate that.

16 I guess, this being said, Stu, this 

17 one is in your court and we’ll wait to hear back 

18 from you. So, John, I think that at this time 

19 I don’t know how much time we planned or 

20 whatever else like that. I ended up taking the 

21 day off because I needed more bodies than what 

22 I could support there, so I think that B- do we 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have time to be able to start pushing through 

2 this issues matrix?

3 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is John. Yes, 

4 there are a handful of issues I think we can 

5 close out pretty quickly because as you recall, 

6 Fernald has been in contention for a long, long 

7 time. We released our Site Profile Review in 

8 2006, and also the SEC Evaluation Report in that 

9 same year. And so the SEC report kind of took 

10 precedence. And, yet, a lot of the issues are 

11 correlated with each other. And because of the 

12 SEC designation, principally, for the thorium 

13 based on air sampling results, a lot of these 

14 findings that we’re talking about, we recommend 

15 just closing. 

16 Some of the others are not going to 

17 be such easy nuts to crack because NIOSH has 

18 released new updated Technical Basis Documents 

19 basically for all except the internal, and I 

20 assume the internal is in the works. So, a lot 

21 of these other findings are B- we recommend 

22 either keeping open or in abeyance until such 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 time as we have a chance to look at the new TBDs 

2 and determine whether they adequately address 

3 our concerns. So, at this point what I would 

4 advocate doing today would be just to go through 

5 the ones that we recommend closing out. 

6 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. That sounds 

7 good with me, so why don’t you go ahead and 

8 proceed, but just B- I just want to make sure 

9 that I follow why we’re closing them, and why 

10 we agree to close the issue.

11 MR. STIVER: Okay, fair enough. Can 

12 everybody see the issues matrix up on the screen 

13 here?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, John, it’s 

15 there.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, it’s Ziemer, 

17 yes.

18 MR. STIVER: We’re now at Finding 1, 

19 this is a TBD finding. And this is related to 

20 thorium, and it’s related to air sampling of 

21 thorium. And it states that the list of 

22 facilities in which thorium-232 was processed, 
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the time periods of thorium processing, the 

2 thorium production data showing TBD had 

3 significant gaps, entire periods of processing 

4 in plants at which the work was done had been 

5 missed. These gaps may affect the feasibility 

6 of dose reconstruction for workers for certain 

7 periods of time in certain plants. 

8 Now, as you all recall, those of us 

9 who have been with us for the duration, there 

10 was a lot of discussion about the adequacy and 

11 the completeness of the air sampling, this DWE 

12 data for thorium. And that’s what this finding 

13 is all about. And, you know, I’m not going to 

14 read everything in here, it’s pretty long and 

15 involved, but it basically summarizes what I 

16 just stated. 

17 In October of last year, we 

18 suggested closing these findings because as 

19 stated here, the NIOSH coworker model, which 

20 was in play at this point from 1979 to 1988 does 

21 not employ air concentration, it employs 

22 bioassay data. So, we recommend closing that. 
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And, as you can see, NIOSH agrees with that 

2 recommendation. So, what we would need now 

3 would just be Work Group approval to go ahead 

4 and close that out. 

5 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

6 agree to go ahead and close that one.

7 MR. STIVER: Okay.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Ziemer, I agree.

9 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: This is Phil. I 

10 agree. 

11 MR. STIVER: The second was related 

12 B- this was TBD Finding 2, air concentration 

13 data for thorium with TBD are sparse and 

14 incomplete. Considerably more data are 

15 available in the NIOSH Site Research Database. 

16 TBD contains no thorium-232 bioassay data. And, 

17 again, we suggest closing this finding because 

18 it’s related to thorium air concentrations for 

19 the DWE model. We recommend closing that, and 

20 again NIOSH agrees with that recommendation. 

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I agree with it, 

22 too. This is Brad.
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Ziemer, I agree.

2 MR. STIVER: Okay. This applies to 

3 Number 3. This is due to thorium intake through 

4 the emissions and resuspension in production 

5 areas. This was a big topic of discussion for 

6 the DWE model: were there enough samples taken 

7 and in the right places? And that model was 

8 rejected, so it’s no longer relevant for SEC 

9 non-participants either. Basically, there’s no 

10 way to reconstruct the thorium doses during 

11 that period, so that wouldn’t apply in any case. 

12 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. This is 

13 Brad. I agree to close that one.

14 MR. STIVER: For 3, close.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Ziemer, I agree.

16 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: This is Phil. I 

17 agree. 

18 MR. STIVER: Number 4 is a little bit 

19 trickier. This related to re-drumming. This is 

20 one that I think we’re going to have to look at 

21 a little bit more carefully. There’s a new TBD 

22 out, Rev 1 of the Site Description, and you see 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 B- we’ve talked long and hard about the thorium 

2 coworker model for 1979 to 1988, and NIOSH’s 

3 response opened up another time period. This 

4 was during the reclamation, decontamination 

5 period, basically 1990 to 1994. There was quite 

6 a bit of re-drumming of thorium containers 

7 going on, so we recommend keeping that one open 

8 until we have a chance to look into that TBD in 

9 a little more detail. Don’t recommend any 

10 closure on that at this point. 

11 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Sounds good.

12 MR. STIVER: Let’s see here, number 

13 5. Thorium fires, number 5 is going to be the 

14 same thing. This may have relevance in 1990 to 

15 >94 so we don’t recommend closing that at this 

16 point. 

17 And number 6, the bottom here of the 

18 page, the approach suggested for estimating 

19 thorium intakes does not reflect the history of 

20 production or the available thorium air 

21 concentration data. Again, this is related to 

22 the DWE model, and we recommend closing that. 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

2 agree.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Ziemer, I agree, 

4 also. 

5 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: This is Phil. I 

6 agree. 

7 MR. STIVER: Okay. Let’s go down the 

8 list. I think there’s maybe one more that we 

9 recommend closing. Let’s see. Number 12, TBD 

10 notes that uranium batches with enrichment 

11 greater than 2 percent were processed at 

12 Fernald. NIOSH’s assumption that 2 percent 

13 enriched uranium is claimant-favorable most of 

14 the time but not for all periods and batches. 

15 And, let’s see. This actually was closed out in, 

16 it looks like October 2008, enrichments can be 

17 identified. After a lengthy discussion, the 

18 Board accepts the 2 percent position and closed 

19 the finding. So, that one is closed. I don’t 

20 think we need to vote on that one at this point. 

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. 

22 MR. STIVER: 13, female employees 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were not monitored for long periods at Fernald 

2 even though at least some of them were at some 

3 risk of internal intake of radionuclides. 

4 There’s a long history of 

discussion here. At November 13th 5 , 2007, the 

6 Work Group decided this was an issue isolated 

7 to a few individuals and should be evaluated on 

8 a case by case basis in dose reconstruction. So, 

9 that was closed out. And NIOSH added some 

10 additional information here. They have some 

11 references, OTIB-73 incorporated into a 

12 Technical Basis. Once again, this is going to 

13 be the Environmental Management Project, so 

14 that document is now available. So, we haven’t 

15 looked at it yet, but I would assume that these 

16 references have been incorporated and the 

17 changes that are listed here have been indeed 

18 taken out. So, I think that one because, as the 

19 previous discussions in the Work Group, we can 

20 assume it’s closed, as well. 

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: John, I just had 

22 one question on that. Down there in the bottom 
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of NIOSH’s response down there, where they’re 

2 talking about the doses, the 500 mR upper bound 

3 dose methodology will be removed during the TBD 

4 revision, so weren’t there B- I guess, Mark, 

5 this one is for you. So, what you’re telling me 

6 is that this is being removed in the new TBD that 

7 just came out, or Stu?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I don’t 

9 know that I have a lot of insight into that. It 

10 sounds like the new Site Profile chapter 

11 changes the approach here so that -- to use a 

12 coworker model. Is that what that says?

13 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: That’s kind of 

14 what I was getting at on this, but we’ll look 

15 into it. I just found it a little bit 

16 interesting, I just wanted to make sure I was 

17 following kind of where we’re going with this 

18 stuff. And you say that this new TBD is out to 

19 be reviewed?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the external 

21 B- it’s on the website. We’ve published it. 

22 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: Maybe it might be better 

2 just to keep this in abeyance, then, until we 

3 have a chance to look at the TBD. Writing our 

4 response or basically what took place in August 

5 of 2007, we B- at that point we had concerns 

6 regarding the shallow dose to the skin and the 

7 extremity dose. And these are B- this is going 

8 to kind of relate to some of the external 

9 concerns in the later findings regarding 

10 shallow dose. A lot has taken place in the 

11 Procedures Subcommittee on these issues, so I 

12 think we’d probably be okay closing this, but 

13 it might be better just for administrative 

14 purposes to keep it in abeyance until we 

15 actually look at the TBD.

16 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: That’s what I’d 

17 like to do, John. 

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

19 A lot has occurred regarding shallow dose, and 

20 it’s relatively recent because our thinking has

21 matured, and there is agreement. And it would 

22 be a good idea to see if, in fact, the latest 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 version of the TBD captures this latest 

2 thinking, so I think it’s important that we just 

3 check it out. Because I have had experience 

4 where some of the concepts that had been agreed 

5 upon have not really gone through the system on 

6 all of the Site Profiles, et cetera, et cetera. 

7 So, it would be a good idea just to B- and it 

8 won’t take long to check if that new thinking 

9 is, in fact, reflected in the TBD. 

10 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Sounds good. 

11 We’ll leave that one in abeyance. 

12 MR. STIVER: 14, this is the last one 

13 that we recommended closure on at this point. 

14 The TBD does not address the extremely high 

15 uranium dust concentrations that were present 

16 at Fernald under a variety of circumstances and 

17 reflect on dose reconstructions. Particle-size 

18 solubility assumptions, worker’s experience 

19 prior should be examined. 

20 And this finding, once again, is no 

21 longer relevant because this B- remember this 

22 finding took place before the uranium bioassay 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 model, the coworker model was actually 

2 implemented. So, this was a concern of using 

3 uranium air dust concentrations in a similar 

4 fashion that was proposed for the thorium 

5 model. So, this no longer has any relevance to 

6 the ongoing dose reconstruction processes that 

7 are in place today, so we recommend closing that 

8 one out. 

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

10 agree.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Ziemer, I agree to 

12 close, as well.

13 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: This is Phil. I 

14 agree. 

15 MR. STIVER: The rest of them to 

16 various extents are kind of contingent upon 

17 what’s been implemented in the new TBDs, so 

18 until we have a chance to look at those TBDs 

19 B- in some cases, as John mentioned, like for 

20 the skin contamination and so forth, it’ll be 

21 just a quick review with a one-line response, 

22 yes, it’s covered. Others are going to be a 
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 little trickier. For example, there’s several 

2 related to recycled uranium, and NIOSH response 

3 in, I believe it’s Report 52, which is dated 

4 sometime in April of 2011, doesn’t reflect the 

5 latest Work Group agreements that took place 

6 after that document on the default levels of 

7 plutonium, technetium, neptunium, so I’m not 

8 sure at this point whether that thinking is 

9 reflected in the new TBD. So, some will be 

10 tricker than others, but at this point, I think 

11 that’s probably all we can really close out 

12 today. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: John the internal 

14 TBD is not issued yet. In fact, I believe we owe 

15 the Work Group some discussion of thorium 

16 intakes after 1978.

17 MR. STIVER: Right. That’s the only 

18 one that’s actually not been released, so I --

19 until that point, we’re just going to have to 

20 hold our findings in abeyance. 

21 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Do we have a time 

22 frame for that roughly? I take it by the pause, 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 no. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: I was on mute. Sorry. 

3 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: I had to check 

4 mine, Stu, to make sure I wasn’t on mute.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I’ve been going on 

6 and off, and that time I missed. Up until then 

7 I’ve been doing okay. We hope to have our 

8 thorium approach and anything remaining from 

9 that to the Work Group before very long. We 

10 couldn’t get it ready for this meeting, so we 

11 decided, you know, we post it on the letter for 

12 the meeting. But I wouldn’t think it would be 

13 too much longer and we’ll be able to get that 

14 to you. And then once B15 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Once we B- if we can 

17 come to agreement on that, then that will give 

18 us the list, and then there will be a number of 

19 things that have to be incorporated in the 

20 internal Site Profile, so then that will follow 

21 a while after still because there are a number 

22 of things to include that we’ve resolved in our 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 discussions.

2 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Well, that 

3 closes out the easy ones. My question is, are 

4 we able to continue on, or do people have other 

5 commitments? Is there any feelings on that?

6 MR. STIVER: Well, Brad, this is 

7 John. That’s really all that we can resolve at 

8 this point today as far as the matrix findings. 

9 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay.

10 MR. STIVER: At some point we would 

11 probably need a formal B- I don’t know if we 

12 B- maybe a question for Ted, whether we need 

13 formal tasking to look at these new TBDs and 

14 evaluate them against our findings. 

15 MR. KATZ: John, I think you should 

16 go ahead and look at the new TBDs against the 

17 findings. We’re trying to close these findings.

18 MR. STIVER: Okay. All right. So, 

19 we’ll take a green light on that. 

20 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Well, that 

21 answers my question. I wanted to make sure that 

22 SC&A started to look at the new TBD. That’s been
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 addressed, and I guess how it’ll affect out some 

2 of these other findings in the matrix there. 

3 Is there anything else that needs to 

4 come before the Work Group at this time?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I move for 

6 adjournment.

7 CHAIRMAN CLAWSON: Okay. Paul, I 

8 guess I have a Dose Reconstruction meeting to 

9 finish reviewing and get sent back, so I’ve got 

10 my work cut out for me the rest of the day. But 

11 anyway, I appreciate everybody calling, Mr. 

12 Doll, everybody that has called in. I 

13 appreciate you taking out of your day to be able 

14 to help us with this, and we’ll look forward to 

15 seeing what NIOSH has come back. And at this 

16 time, I adjourn the meeting, if there’s nothing 

17 else. Thank you.

18 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everybody.

19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

20 matter went off the record at 11:33 a.m. Eastern 

21 Daylight Time.)

22
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8