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

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

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 GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANTS/GDP

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

DECEMBER 1, 2010

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened in the 

Zurich Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 9:00 a.m., Phillip Schofield, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Chairman

HENRY ANDERSON, Member*

JOSIE BEACH, Member
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

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

HANS BEHLING, SC&A*

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, ORAU Team*

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

JOSEPH FITZGERALD, SC&A

JACK FIX, ORAU Team*

EMILY HOWELL, HHS

JENNY LIN, HHS*

CHUCK NELSON, DCAS

JIM NETON, DCAS

SUSAN WINSLOW, ORAU Team*

*Participating via telephone
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 9:08 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: All right. Good morning, 

4 everyone in the room and on the line. This is 

5 the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

6 Health. This is the, for shorthand, Gaseous 

7 Diffusion Plants Work Group, and we're 

8 beginning with roll call, and we'll begin with 

9 Board Members in the room. And please speak to 

10 conflicts of interest as well as saying you're 

11 here, beginning with the Chair. 

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Phil 

13 Schofield, Board Member. Chair -- I am Chair 

14 of the Work Group. No conflicts. 

15 MEMBER BEACH: Josie Beach, Board 

16 Member. No conflict. 

17 MR. KATZ: And on the line, do we 

18 have Andy Anderson? Dr. Anderson? 

19 (No response.) 

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. Not at this time. 

21 NIOSH ORAU team, in the room? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. NELSON: Okay, my name is Chuck 

2 Nelson. I'm a health physicist. I have no 

3 conflicts. I'm with DCAS. 

4 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Grady Calhoun, 

5 NIOSH team leader. No conflicts. 

6 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, NIOSH. No 

7 conflict. 

8 MR. KATZ: NIOSH ORAU team on the 

9 line? 

10 MS. WINSLOW: This is Susan Winslow 

11 with the ORAU team. No conflict. 

12 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Susan. 

13 MS. WINSLOW: Thank you. 

14 MR. FIX: This is Jack Fix, ORAU 

15 team. No conflicts. 

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. SC&A, in the room? 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Joe Fitzgerald. No 

18 conflict. 

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

20 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling. No 

21 conflict. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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: Welcome, Hans. Anyone 

2 else from SC&A? You were expecting --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: John may or may 

4 not, but --

5 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: -- I know, I knew 

7 Hans would be here.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. And then, HHS or 

9 other government officials or contractors to 

10 the feds in the room? 

11 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 

12 MS. LIN: Jenny Lin, HHS. 

13 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, can you say 

14 that again, whoever's on the line? 

15 MS. LIN: This is Jenny. I just 

16 have, have a cold. 

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, Jenny. Welcome, 

18 Jenny. Anyone else? Okay, and then members of 

19 the public? Are there -- there are none in the 

20 room. Are there any on the line? Well, then. 

21 Okay, that's it. Then, let me just remind 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 folks on the line to mute your phones when 

2 you're not speaking to the group, and if you 

3 don't have a mute button, use *6, and then *6 

4 again to take yourself off mute. And Phil, 

5 it's your agenda. 

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: This is the 

7 first Work Group meeting on the gaseous 

8 diffusion plants. That covers Paducah, Oak 

9 Ridge, K-25, and Portsmouth. They were granted 

10 SEC under the original legislation. 

11 The last review of the TBD for 

12 Paducah was done, by SC&A, was done in October 

13 2006. There are a number of revised sections 

14 of the TBD for Paducah released by DCAS in 

15 April and May and June of 2007. 

16 So it's now been four years. This 

17 is one of the first times the Board has had a 

18 Work Group go back and actually look at the 

19 site revisions that have been done to assess 

20 what has or has not been done in these site 

21 revisions. Okay, Joe? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: Okay, thanks, 

2 Phil. In terms of the review, these, you know, 

3 these, certainly, these three gaseous 

4 diffusion plants have a number of 

5 commonalities as far as source term and 

6 history, so that's certainly the reason why 

7 they were put together as a group to be 

8 reviewed. 

9 And, of course, as Phil mentioned, 

10 they were included in the original legislation 

11 in terms of the SEC -- inclusion in the SEC. 

12 When we were asked to support the Work Group 

13 by reviewing the three sites, what we did was, 

14 we went back to the 2006 and 2007 reviews that 

15 we did, and that's sort of the time frame 

16 where we did look at Portsmouth, Paducah, and 

17 the Oak Ridge gaseous diffusion plant, also 

18 called K-25. 

19 And, looked at the findings that 

20 were made, looked at the TBDs that were 

21 reviewed as well as any revisions that took 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 place. And, by and large, with maybe only one 

2 exception, the timing of our review either 

3 coincided or just slightly preceded the 

4 issuance of the most recent TBD. 

5 So, to a large extent, a lot of 

6 the findings, it would not have been easy to

7 include them in the issuance that took place. 

8 Again, we did predate Portsmouth by about 

9 seven or eight months, and certainly are -- is 

10 some reflection of the findings in the 

11 Portsmouth document. 

12 But again, I think it, by and 

13 large, for the three gaseous diffusion plants, 

14 the reviews were closely aligned, schedule15 wise, with the most recent issuance of those 

16 Site Profiles. So a lot of what will be 

17 discussed, I think, is to understand what 

18 maybe the NIOSH staff position on a number of 

19 the issues that were raised in these original 

20 Site Profile reviews from three or four years 

21 ago. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 to get some sense of what the 

2 likely reflection of those findings will be in 

3 the next issuance of the TBDs. Now, we went 

4 through the findings, you know, we recognize 

5 that, you know, a Site Profile is a lot 

6 different than the SEC reviews that we've 

7 done, and we wanted to distinguish what we 

8 felt were the more significant Site Profile 

9 findings, i.e., the ones that would perhaps 

10 influence, in our judgment, dose 

11 reconstruction more than others. 

12 And, the others being findings of, 

13 you know, factual accuracy, perhaps an 

14 equation wasn't quite right. Things that I 

15 think will be pretty patently obvious and 

16 available to NIOSH in any case, so it wouldn't 

17 require a lot of explanation. 

18 So, we try to make that 

19 distinction, and what we put in the matrices 

20 that we circulated, what we thought were the, 

21 the higher priority issues for discussion. We 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 did include the others in the last page or two 

2 of the matrix just for completeness sake, and 

3 we called them secondary issues. 

4 Now, the Work Group may want to 

5 probe those as well, and decide if they agreed 

6 with how we split that up. Certainly, there 

7 may be some there that would bear some further 

8 discussion, but that's kind of how we did it. 

9 A couple weeks ago, we did receive 

10 an initial, you know, response from NIOSH to 

11 this listing of the priority issues for 

12 Paducah. So, the focus today is really on the 

13 Paducah Site Profile and the status of that 

14 set of TBDs relative to the findings that were 

15 made in the 2006, October 2006 Site Profile 

16 review. 

17 And, if you want, we can just sort 

18 of jump in unless there's some questions about 

19 how we approached it. That's pretty much it. 

20 The matrices is a summary of what was in the 

21 Site Profile. Of course, all the details are, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you know, available in the review itself, but 

2 they were reiterated in summary fashion, here. 

3 Any questions on how that was done? 

4 Okay. This is, in terms of 

5 Paducah, the first issue that we focused on 

6 was on TBD 19-2, which was the site 

7 description. And, there, the question that we 

8 raised is whether or not the specific activity 

9 that was attributed to U-235 and U-234 were 

10 appropriate given the information that was 

11 provided in the TBD at that time regarding the 

12 enrichment levels. 

13 And, at the time the enrichment 

14 levels were given, at levels that in fact 

15 could be higher than 2 percent. I'm not going 

16 to, you know, perhaps, paraphrase the NIOSH 

17 response. But, we did note that, I guess, 

18 NIOSH indicated that the reference for the 

19 higher end of that range, which is the 3 and 5 

20 percent, could not be located, per se, in the, 

21 has since been, or will be deleted, I guess it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was --

2 MR. NELSON: Yes, it will be 

3 deleted. 

4 MR. FITZGERALD: -- will be 

5 deleted. And, you're going to, in a sense, 

6 default to the 2 percent nominal level as the 

7 one that has the attribution available.

8 MR. NELSON: Right. That's correct. 

9 What we think is that the 3 to 5 percent 

10 statement that was made probably came from --

11 when the material left Paducah, it went to 

12 Portsmouth, and they nominally enriched it 

13 from 3 to 5 percent. 

14 I think that typo made its way 

15 into the site description, so we think that's 

16 where it came from. But we feel that, you 

17 know, we looked at some other references. You 

18 had recycled uranium mass report, and it said 

19 that the enrichment of UF6 varied roughly 

20 from, the material there, from .7 to 2 percent 

21 at the end. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, we felt that was in the bounds 

2 of what we were looking at, we saw some 

3 different references, such as the PACE report. 

4 It assumed, in all their calculations, they 

5 actually used normal uranium, so we felt that 

6 the 2 percent that we're using is a nice, 

7 conservative value and should be a claimant8 favorable value. 

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, that again 

10 was the source of our observation, and I think 

11 this would, in a sense, make it moot since 

12 you're talking about a -- ascribing a lower 

13 enrichment level. 

14 I don't know if the Work Group 

15 wants to talk about anything relative to 

16 recycle and isotopes, or -- we were focused 

17 on, I think, the U-235, U-234 in this 

18 particular comment. And it's more of a factual 

19 accuracy issue, it relates to the enrichment, 

20 so. If, you know, if that enrichment citation 

21 is not correct, and it's supposed to be lower, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 then I think this goes away. 

2 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Do we know how 

3 much material -- recycled uranium is brought 

4 back into the facility? 

5 MR. NELSON: Well, there is a 

6 uranium -- there is a recycle report, that 

7 gives quite a bit of detail on how much 

8 recycled material was processed through the 

9 plant, and we have looked at that and it's, in 

10 the internal TBD, in the coworker TBD, to 

11 where it shows -- what we did, is we tie those 

12 different recycle components to a uranium 

13 level and we assigned internal dose based on 

14 those concentrations. 

15 So, we are aware of, you know, 

16 obviously, that recycled material was used in 

17 there quite a bit and it's within our reports. 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, is that upper 

19 bound by time period relative to when certain 

20 campaigns were cycled through Paducah? 

21 MR. NELSON: Somebody can correct 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 me if I'm wrong, but I believe they're taking 

2 a worst case concentration amount when there 

3 was certain campaigns and the percentages were 

4 higher, and we're tying in the recycled 

5 components to the uranium numbers and we're 

6 directly ratio-ing those. So, it's based on a 

7 worst case assumption. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Of -- not your 

9 specific --

10 MR. NELSON: Excuse me? 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Not time specific, 

12 time period specific? 

13 MR. NELSON: No. Just an overall --

14 correct. 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

16 MR. NELSON: So it's a claimant17 favorable in that it's taking a worst case 

18 situation. 

19 MEMBER BEACH: Is that captured 

20 anywhere else, the recycled uranium? 

21 MR. NELSON: It's contained --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 BEACH: I was trying to 

2 think back of what I was reading here. 

3 MR. NELSON: It's contained within 

4 the internal TBD, as well as the internal 

5 coworker TBD. And there'll be some discussion 

6 in environmental TBD as well. There was also a 

7 Program Evaluation Report where we actually 

8 ended up having to perform dose 

9 reconstructions over. 

10 This was back in 2007, because it 

11 was, we realized that we didn't take proper 

12 account of the recycled material, so we 

13 actually re-performed several dose 

14 reconstructions, based on that. 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: That PER, that, 

16 did that come out of the Fernald discussion? 

17 I'm trying to remember, I recall that 

18 recycling --

19 MR. NELSON: I read it -- I don't, 

20 honestly, I don't remember it. I think it's in 

21 the preface to that PER, if I looked it up - - 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

2 MR. NELSON: You might be correct 

3 on that, though. 

4 MR. FITZGERALD: I think it was 

5 sort of identified and then applied to --

6 MR. NELSON: Seemed like there was 

7 --

8 MR. FITZGERALD: -- all the 

9 recipients of the recycle. 

10 MR. NELSON: Seemed like there were 

11 several sites at the time and it kind of fed 

12 that. I think you're correct. 

13 DR. NETON: There was a finding, 

14 eleven is related to recycle and that has to 

15 do with the isotopes in addition to the 

16 neptunium and the plutonium. I don't know why, 

17 we deal with that at the time. But it looks 

18 like it's been taken care of. 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Josie was just 

20 pointing out a reference, this is --

21 MEMBER BEACH: Worker interviews. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: Yes, this is in 

2 the worker interviews, page 91, it came from 

3 the worker interviews about building X330, 

4 having a higher enrichment level. This was 

5 cited in the safety analysis report for that 

6 facility. 

7 MEMBER BEACH: That was at 15 

8 percent. 

9 MR. NELSON: Well, I think, if you 

10 look at the majority of where the work took 

11 place, the feed plants and everything leads 

12 all the way up to enrichment, obviously the 

13 enrichment's going to be well less than 2 

14 percent.

15 I think the fact that, if we use 2 

16 percent, which is a good nominal claimant17 favorable value, and we assign all the dose as

18 U234, like we always do, we take a claimant19 favorable solubility like we always do. I 

20 think, overall, that's going to overwhelm and 

21 be claimant-favorable to the claimants when 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you do a internal dose reconstruction. 

2 I mean, like I said, it's one 

3 example of a high enrichment. I can't say I'm 

4 necessarily aware of that particular issue.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: You might want to 

6 check that. I know Portsmouth had a high end, 

7 because they were, you know, doing naval fuel. 

8 MR. NELSON: Right. 

9 MR. FITZGERALD: But, Paducah, I 

10 can't recall in terms of application and, now 

11 it's been three or four years. So, to be 

12 honest, I think you'd probably have to go back 

13 and reeducate a little bit. But you might want 

14 to check and see if, that one reference, that 

15 one facility would be useful just to pin that 

16 down. 

17 I think in general, you're right, 

18 I think in terms of Paducah I think it was, 

19 you know, pretty much, unlike Portsmouth, 

20 didn't have a high end. It was pretty much an 

21 average. But, it would be helpful to know that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was an exception and to what effect, where if 

2 it did affect some workers, then that might be 

3 a reason to qualify, I guess, the statement in 

4 the Site Profile. 

5 MR. NELSON: What building was 

6 that? 

7 MEMBER BEACH: This one was 

8 actually X330. But then I was actually looking 

9 at the front page, which I didn't highlight. 

10 Talked about Portsmouth--

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, are you 

12 looking at Portsmouth or Paducah? 

13 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, that's what I'm 

14 wondering, if --

15 MR. FITZGERALD: If you're looking 

16 at Portsmouth, I agree, there's a high end at 

17 Portsmouth --

18 MS. WINSLOW: This is Susan 

19 Winslow. X330 is a Portsmouth facility. 

20 MEMBER BEACH: It is, it's a 

21 Portsmouth. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: Yes, okay. Yes, I 

2 know the high end on Portsmouth, but Paducah, 

3 I think there isn't. So. Okay. 

4 MR. CALHOUN: Isn't most of a 

5 bioassay an activity rather than --

6 MR. NELSON: Yes. Concentrations.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. So when we 

8 have, when we have bioassay, the enrichment 

9 really shouldn't matter. 

10 MR. NELSON: No. Because we assume 

11 that all U234 --

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I'm just, I'm 

13 just going to this first issue, which does 

14 deal with the site description and the 

15 enrichment levels, blah blah blah. Sort of 

16 characterization. But, I agree --

17 MR. NELSON: We're familiar with 

18 Portsmouth having a high end, so this makes 

19 sense. And what we took out of that is we do 

20 have a typo in there --

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. NELSON: -- and we do agree 

2 that needs to be clarified. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

4 MR. NELSON: So. But we still think 

5 2 percent is a good claimant-favorable number.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, when I look 

7 back over, I think this jibes with, you know, 

8 we thought it was 50 percent too low, but that 

9 was because it was 50 percent higher in terms 

10 of the reference. So, it kind of really levels 

11 out.

12 DR. NETON: I guess I have a 

13 process question before we go much further. 

14 This, with the matrix here, we have our 

15 responses, who is going to -- is SC&A going to 

16 then update, you know, the matrix with your --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: I'd be willing to 

18 send that to the Work Group and to you and 

19 just say, you know, here's our, you know, 

20 administrative checking of it, and do you 

21 agree with --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Right. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: -- you know, that. 

3 DR. NETON: That would be fine, I 

4 just want to make sure --

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Pretty much the 

6 same as we've done in the past. 

7 DR. NETON: Yes, that's fine. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Because I would 

9 recommend, unless the Work Group has any 

10 exceptions or any questions, that we would 

11 close this particular one and give him the 

12 response. 

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Anybody have 

14 an objection to that? 

15 MEMBER BEACH: No. 

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, so other 

18 issues. We go on to issue two, which is also 

19 on the site description, again. And, this 

20 deals with the numbers of workers assigned to 

21 zero dose, and really gets down to a couple of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 tables that were in the 2004 TBD which has 

2 been superceded since. 

3 But, these tables used average 

4 values and there is in fact a footnote that 

5 does indicate that, that that would affect the 

6 average, obviously. And my reading of the 

7 NIOSH response is that, you know, that the two 

8 tables in question really aren't relevant to 

9 dose reconstruction per se, and would be 

10 removed in the next revision. 

11 And that OTIB-31, which has been 

12 out for, certainly a few years, is going to be 

13 the source of information in this regard 

14 anyway. So, I don't know. 

15 MR. NELSON: I think it's an 

16 accurate statement. I mean, there is a 

17 footnote down there that says the zeroes 

18 definitely lower the average recorded dose 

19 rates for these individuals, and really, this 

20 being the site description, I think initially 

21 this was placed in there to give people 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

3 MR. NELSON: But it can be somewhat 

4 misleading because if you do look at the 

5 external coworker TBD, you'll see values that 

6 we assigned for the different percentiles to 

7 be higher than these levels, and it's 

8 basically because the coworker TIB, as in the 

9 missed dose.

10 Which, you know, it's noted at the 

11 bottom of this table, but I agree, that can be 

12 misleading and we felt we would do it, just 

13 take that out of the site description and it 

14 is covered adequately in the external coworker 

15 Technical Information Bulletin.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: And we would tend

17 to agree with that. I think the only comment 

18 we had was this question of, since it's in the 

19 site description, whether it would be somewhat 

20 misleading --

21 MR. NELSON: I agree with that. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: -- it would, you 

2 know, certainly footnote what is in fact, or 

3 was in fact there. That's the only comment. 

4 MEMBER BEACH: Does it fully answer 

5 the question, the number of zeroes being 

6 disclosed? 

7 MR. NELSON: Let me read that, 

8 then, let's see.

9 DR. NETON: It seems that that's 

10 not used, is what we're --

11 MR. NELSON: Yes, well--

12 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, you're not using 

13 it at all, okay. 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: I think we accept 

15 the context that 2.2 and 2.3 were provided as 

16 information, background information for the 

17 reader, and it could be seen as misleading 

18 even though it did have a footnote. It's going 

19 to be taken out in that context and we're fine 

20 --

21 MEMBER BEACH: So then, okay, we're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not going to--

2 MR. FITZGERALD: I mean, I think 31 

3 is a good place--

4 MR. NELSON: I think what happened 

5 is this, this, these tables went in here 

6 straight out of the PACE report, it was a 

7 report done in 2000. And they basically put 

8 them in there to try to give the reader a feel 

9 for what type of doses they had in the earlier 

10 and later days. 

11 And they didn't include zeroes at

12 the time. The coworker Technical Information 

13 Bulletin that we have now does account for the 

14 zeroes. So, we agree, that would, can be 

15 misleading, so we, it doesn't add any value to 

16 this part of the site description document, so 

17 we'll just take it out. 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: That's fine. 

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Any 

20 objections?

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 SCHOFIELD: Close out 

2 number two. 

3 DR. NETON: Close? I don't want to 

4 complicate the issue, but is, do you want to 

5 close it, or you want to like, what do you 

6 call it --

7 MEMBER BEACH: Put it in abeyance.

8 DR. NETON: -- in abeyance, or 

9 something like that. 

10 MEMBER BEACH: Abeyance. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Well no, I think 

12 31 is picked up later. I think in the context 

13 of site description, I don't think, I mean, 

14 this is the first time we've ever even gone 

15 through a Site Profile, so -- yes, process16 wise, I just figured we'd go through, you 

17 know, the site description, go through each of 

18 the TBDs and of course, later on, you know --

19 DR. NETON: I'm not against closing 

20 it, trust me. I just want to make sure 

21 something doesn't come back later and say, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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, we inappropriately, you know, acted on 

2 that. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I think 

4 there's some question on the, on the coworker, 

5 OTIB-31. But not in this context of these two 

6 tables, and the question of whether it 

7 misleads or not, I think, you know, this 

8 sounds like a good solution to that issue. 

9 DR. NETON: I mean, we can close 

10 it, pending NIOSH's revision of the Site 

11 Profile or something like that, and -- I don't 

12 know how you want to --

13 MR. KATZ: If it's not a concern 

14 here, you just close it. 

15 DR. NETON: Okay. 

16 MR. KATZ: I mean, and, like Joe 

17 says, you'll get to the --

18 DR. NETON: Okay. 

19 MR. NELSON: Because if you look at 

20 it, there is a note down there that makes the 

21 statement that the zero values were not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 included, but, I think from a confusion 

2 standpoint we ought to delete it. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, yes. One 

4 thing, I guess, Phil and I were discussing 

5 before the meeting, is, since this is a 

6 different beast than an SEC in terms of 

7 closure, you're right. I mean, it's closed in 

8 terms of an issue, but in terms of actual 

9 revision of the TBD, that's going to be at 

10 some point later. 

11 I don't know if the Work Group 

12 will want to review whatever the draft is of 

13 that, but that's a different issue. That's not 

14 this. 

15 DR. NETON: We would probably just 

16 revise it, and the issue --

17 MR. KATZ: I mean normally you 

18 would put an item in abeyance if there's some 

19 uncertainty about how it's actually going to 

20 be resolved in a revision so that the Work 

21 Group would want to see it. In these cases, it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is pretty cut and dried, so there's no real --

2 MEMBER BEACH: It would be nice to 

3 review the changes, though. Is that a 

4 possibility before it gets put out? 

5 DR. NETON: Well, we don't like to 

6 do that, so we like to -- you know, we'll 

7 issue it, I mean, we don't want to get in this 

8 position of sort of appearing that, you're 

9 approving our, sort of, documents, you know 

10 what I'm saying? You certainly have a right 

11 to review everything we do, but we don't want 

12 to get in sort of an approval --

13 MEMBER BEACH: Right. 

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So ultimately, 

15 what we're doing here today is not going to 

16 apply to -- those people are covered under the 

17 SEC. This is for the people who do not have 

18 presumptive cancer, who are having to have 

19 partial dose reconstructions done.

20 MR. NELSON: Actually I have some 

21 numbers for that which might be helpful. I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 actually called in and got the, out of those 

2 nonpresumptive cancers that you mentioned, 

3 there are 1,679 of them. Out of that, 1,237 --

4 well, let me just say first, there are, out of 

5 those, 108 are active. So they haven't been 

6 completed.

7 1,237 were less than 50 percent, 

8 whereas 442 were greater than 50 percent, 

9 probability of causation. So that just gives 

10 you an idea of the number, which are the 

11 nonpresumptive cancers. 

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Before we leave 

13 the subject, is here any sense about, or is 

14 this disclosed as something that's coming, 

15 what the pathway is for a revision of the 2007 

16 TBD? Is that --

17 DR. NETON: Just a time frame --

18 MR. FITZGERALD: I mean, is that --

19 yes, is that likely soon, or likely --

20 MR. NELSON: I think what would 

21 make sense is that we get through these issues 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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, obviously, we're going to uncover some 

2 more things that we're maybe seeing that need 

3 to be changed, and we might come to an 

4 agreement within the Working Group that other 

5 things need to be changed.

6 So, it would make no sense to me 

7 to try to do them before that time, but I 

8 think soon after we close these issues, I 

9 think that would be the right timing to revise 

10 it. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay --

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Does anybody 

13 have a problem with going that route? 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Proceeding 

15 to issue three, if I can. Still on site 

16 description, and this one, again, gets into 

17 the background information for the site, and 

18 one facility, which is the smelting facility, 

19 746B, was one that the review team felt was a 

20 fairly significant thing that didn't seem to 

21 be mentioned in the Site Profile. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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, I think your response was, 

2 you know, it was a general description and 

3 certainly you have no objections to 

4 highlighting it in the next revision, which I 

5 think is a perfectly diplomatic answer. So, 

6 you know, not going to certainly fall on that 

7 sword. 

8 But, you know, in fairness to the 

9 reviewers, I think that was one facility that 

10 they thought was a -- one where there was 

11 certainly an exposure potential. Phil, Josie, 

12 do you have any -- 

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't have 

14 anything to add on that. Do you, Josie? 

15 MEMBER BEACH: No. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Of course, these 

17 are the easy ones --

18 MR. KATZ: Close. 

19 (Simultaneous speaking.)

20 MR. FITZGERALD: All right. Moving 

21 right along to the Occ Med, the Occupational 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Medical Dose TBD, 19-3. This is issue number 

2 four that we're on in the matrix. This one had 

3 more to do with a particular reference that we 

4 have found in other TBDs of the same time 

5 frame that we felt was pretty important, which 

6 is the, this Kathren, Ron Kathren piece. 

7 And I looked at the Occ Med TBD, 

8 compared it, this is the one that was issued I 

9 guess, six months after the Site Profile 

10 review. And, did in fact find the most recent 

11 version, rev 3, of OTIB-06, which includes the 

12 Kathren-Shockley reference, included. 

13 So that's, in my view, directly 

14 responsive to the issue that we had, that 

15 seemed to be missing in the 2004 TBD but was 

16 caught in the 2007 version of the TBD. So, I 

17 think that satisfies us and really was an 

18 updating of what I think was NIOSH's thinking 

19 as far as what was pertinent to the Occ Med 

20 issue, that particular Occ Med issue on X21 rays.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now, you had an additional 

2 response. Maybe you can explain that --

3 MR. NELSON: Yes, we just wanted to 

4 -- I felt that it would be important, because 

5 there were a lot of secondary issues with this 

6 one. Just to give everybody an idea of how we 

7 do dose reconstruction from a medical 

8 standpoint. 

9 Because one of the issues that was 

10 brought up was PFGs, X-ray exams. So, we 

11 looked at 1,224 Paducah non-compensable claims 

12 to date, and we didn't find any PFG exams. 

13 Typically, when we do assign X-rays, we assign 

14 them in an overestimating fashion.

15 Unless, of course, they have the 

16 actual X-ray records in their occupational 

17 records, in which case we'll assign them that 

18 way. If you get to the case where you need to

19 do a best estimate on an individual, we'll 

20 assign them X-rays of every two years after 

21 1985, and every three years before 1986. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Our review of the records indicate 

2 that X-rays were less frequent than every two 

3 to three years. So that will just give you an 

4 idea of how we assign X-rays for that 

5 facility. 

6 We saw that SC&A pretty much was 

7 okay with our response, or that, you know, 

8 with the revision -- but we just wanted to 

9 provide that extra information. 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and this, 

11 again, this is issue of completeness. I think 

12 the Kathren reference plus this reference 

13 provides what we would see as a complete 

14 picture of the frequency and scope of the 

15 medical X-ray program at the site. 

16 We thought that might have been a 

17 little lacking in the previous version, or at 

18 least wasn't clear on the previous version, 

19 whether or not the Kathren document was, was 

20 included. 

21 MEMBER BEACH: So, by your response 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 up at the top, you're actually going to 

2 include the Kathren document? 

3 MR. NELSON: It's already 

4 referenced. 

5 MEMBER BEACH: It's already 

6 referenced, okay. 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: It's referenced. I 

8 mean, we, we were very explicit. We said 

9 revision three of ORAU OTIB-006 seemed to be 

10 missing from the TBD and they since have added 

11 it --

12 MEMBER BEACH: Added it. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: -- and again, keep 

14 in mind that the TBD for Occ Med was updated 

15 about six, seven months after this Site 

16 Profile came out, so put them side by side. 

17 That was the change, which was a response --

18 MEMBER BEACH: And I think that, I 

19 was just a tad bit confused on the dates when, 

20 every two years is assumed after `85 but 

21 before `86, it was every three years, so those 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dates kind of --

2 MR. NELSON: Well, they overlap a 

3 little bit. 

4 MEMBER BEACH: They overlap, well, 

5 so I was kind of wondering about that. 

6 MR. NELSON: I think `85 is the key 

7 here.

8 MEMBER BEACH: `85. Okay. 

9 MR. NELSON: So that, the last one 

10 probably should say `85 instead of `86. That's 

11 laid out in the Technical Basis Document.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it just gets 

13 down to asbestos -- the only differential note 

14 is that asbestos -- this is from our review --

15 is that asbestos workers after `86 had a chest 

16 exam performed every two years. It says only 

17 smokers are documented in table 3.1 of the 

18 2004 TBD as having received an exam every 

19 three years. So there is some distinction 

20 between the asbestos workers.

21 MEMBER BEACH: 35? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: Yes, it's on page 

2 35 of the SC&A review. Those -- this certainly 

3 is a little history as far as the frequency 

4 goes. Again, I would recommend closure on this 

5 issue, unless there's any other questions on 

6 it. Okay. Issue--I'm sorry? 

7 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I was going to 

8 ask if DCAS has any further comments on the--

9 MR. NELSON: No. No. 

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, if you want 

12 to go into some of the perspectives in the 

13 review, you have our review. And, on some of 

14 these, it probably, you know, these are kind 

15 of accuracy issues. I didn't want to go 

16 through and, go through all the explanations, 

17 since clearly there's no disagreement. On 

18 issue five, and this one actually applies to 

19 all the TBDs, and I think in -- generally, the 

20 Site Profile review team shared a concern over 

21 how contamination control and the skin and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 extremity dose was handled in the 2004 Site 

2 Profile. 

3 And the issue is that there just 

4 didn't seem to be a lot of information, you 

5 know, first off, characterization information 

6 in the site description, and perhaps a dose 

7 estimation approach provided in the other TBDs 

8 on how skin contamination would be addressed 

9 in the context of how that would contribute. 

10 And -- Grady's earlier comment 

11 that you were just dealing with intakes anyway 

12 certainly applies to that, which is inhaler 

13 adjusted. I think in terms of actual skin 

14 exposure, and if I'm not wrong on non15 presumptive that might actually have some 

16 bearing. 

17 It would seem to be, and this is 

18 not just for Paducah. I guess this would be 

19 one of these generic issues across the three 

20 gaseous diffusion plants--

21 MR. NELSON: -- many other sites --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: -- and I can't 

2 recall if there's an OTIB on this now or not, 

3 but certainly the issue of skin contamination 

4 has come up a number of times before. 

5 MR. NELSON: And we do have an OCAS 

6 OTIB 10, which is for geometry issues, when 

7 you have a whole body dosimeter on you and 

8 you're working with extremities, it does give 

9 you some correction factors, but typically 

10 that's for glove boxes. But you can also use 

11 that as well. 

12 DR. NETON: Right, but we -- I 

13 think we have -- I thought we had a TIB that 

14 just, that dealt with how to use VARSKIN to do 

15 skin dose calculations. 

16 (Simultaneous speaking.)

17 DR. NETON: -- I think we do -- but 

18 that's not really, I mean, even if that's in 

19 place, I think the larger question here is 

20 what -- how do you deal with skin 

21 contaminations on a generic basis, and our 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 answer previously has been, and I think it's 

2 reiterated here, unless we know something 

3 about a skin contamination event that occurred 

4 and was on a specific location, there's not 

5 much else we can do. 

6 You know, you can't sort of 

7 speculate that everyone had so much skin 

8 contamination over their entire work history. 

9 It just doesn't, it's just not a practical way 

10 to approach this. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. This being a 

12 Site Profile, I think the context of this 

13 comment was just, there didn't seem to be much 

14 perspective, background information, guidance. 

15 I mean, I think this is a -- this is 

16 instructive, but I think that was the, basic 

17 finding of the team that when they looked at 

18 this, understanding that, historically, at the 

19 diffusion plants, contamination was a, was --

20 MEMBER BEACH: Frequent occurrence. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: -- pretty big 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 deal. I mean, it was certainly a source term 

2 to be concerned about. The issue was simply 

3 more characterization of, well, how 

4 significant of a -- exposure source was skin 

5 contamination, extremity exposure, at the --

6 not just Paducah, at -- really at all the 

7 gaseous diffusion plants. 

8 And in terms of incident data, you 

9 know, information on incidents, is there a 

10 likelihood that you'd be able to use incident 

11 information to assign a contribution from 

12 contamination or not. I - I didn't do Paducah 

13 per se. However, having spent weeks at 

14 Portsmouth, leading that Tiger Team, I know 

15 Portsmouth backwards and forward. 

16 And I think the contamination 

17 issue is worth looking at, and, you know, 

18 deciding in the final analysis it may be what 

19 Jim has just said, that, you know, really, it 

20 -- worker by worker issue. And you can't do 

21 much beyond that. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But, I -- certainly the Site 

2 Profile doesn't give you a whole lot to go by 

3 on that regard, as to whether there's a --

4 sufficient incident information, sufficient 

5 information relative to significance of 

6 extremity and contamination as a source, and 

7 whether that's -- going to be worth -- and to 

8 my way of thinking, it's also a -- an issue of 

9 how much effort would be necessary. 

10 But certainly it's a question I 

11 would have, is how's that play into this. And 

12 if I were to take one issue amongst all these 

13 issues at Paducah I think that would be the 

14 one that would be of concern to me in terms 

15 of, in a Site Profile context, that if this is 

16 a road map for a dose reconstructor, it seems 

17 to be a gap as far as the -- the background 

18 information on how you would actually deal 

19 with that. 

20 I mean, I -- I understand the 

21 default, which is to go to this position, but 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 -- I'd be uneasy about just going to the 

2 default in every case without knowing what the 

3 circumstances were. 

4 DR. NETON: I'm looking through our 

5 TIBS and I don't recall, I --

6 MR. FITZGERALD: I thought there 

7 was one, and -- maybe I'm --

8 DR. NETON: -- I thought there was 

9 one, I distinctly remember --

10 MR. CALHOUN: I can't remember, 

11 maybe the IG, maybe it's in the IG --

12 DR. NETON: -- it might be in the 

13 implementation guide, but I think we should 

14 take the action item, go back and look at what 

15 TIBs we have out there, whether it's in the 

16 TIB or the IG to discuss external exposure 

17 contamination. And sort of reiterate this 

18 guidance as if we just put in the response --

19 MR. FITZGERALD: And how that is 

20 sufficient in these circumstances. 

21 DR. NETON: And to what extent you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 need to -- goes into the Site Profile itself 

2 or we reference some other document that we 

3 might need to write because it, like you say, 

4 it is a somewhat generic issue. 

5 MR. NELSON: One thing the TBD was 

6 responsive to was technetium-99, and it 

7 discusses if individuals were to get 

8 contaminated how to deal with that 

9 contamination and how to assign dose. And it 

10 also -- there was some discussion regarding if 

11 you look in some of the reference IDs for this 

12 particular site of technetium, you know, you 

13 don't have to get very far away from it before 

14 the dose drops off. It's pretty low energy. 

15 But it gave you some thumb rules 

16 on, if you have protective clothing, 

17 essentially it shields it all the way, whereas 

18 you have to be within, I think it's like, 15 

19 centimeters, and the dose even drops off then, 

20 but it's, you know, it gave some description 

21 of how many -- if you were exposed at this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 frequency, what type of exposure rates you 

2 would get on a monthly basis. 

3 MEMBER BEACH: Well, then --

4 MR. NELSON: You will find some 

5 discussion in the TBD on how to deal with 

6 technetium contamination. 

7 MEMBER BEACH: And that's in 10? 

8 MR. NELSON: That's in the external 

9 dosimetry TBD. Let's see if I have it written 

10 down --

11 MEMBER BEACH: Well, and then this 

12 -- you also reference VARSKIN and Microshield. 

13 How --

14 MR. NELSON: Yes, those are just 

15 some programs that we can use to assess 

16 extremity doses, and they're often used, if 

17 you, if you do have an individual that's 

18 contaminated, you enter the information in 

19 those programs, and it helps you determine 

20 what the dose to the skin is. 

21 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Do those 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 programs differentiate between, say, skin 

2 contamination that's an oxide versus an 

3 aqueous solution? 

4 MR. NELSON: Grady probably knows; 

5 he's probably used them--

6 DR. NETON: Not usually. I mean, 

7 there's not much difference, if it's such a 

8 thin layer, there's not going to be much self 

9 absorption, unless it's something like a 

10 tritium. That wouldn't even penetrate the 

11 skin. But, in general, it's for fairly 

12 energetic betas that you wouldn't make much 

13 difference. 

14 I think VARSKIN does allow for 

15 thickness -- there's a thickness --

16 MR. CALHOUN: Source thickness?

17 DR. NETON: -- source thickness 

18 within VARSKIN.

19 MR. CALHOUN: I think so, too. 

20 DR. NETON: But if it's sort of not 

21 visible on the skin, but measurable, usually 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it's so thin that the self absorption of the, 

2 of the matrix is not that important in the 

3 calculation. 

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, you're 

5 mentioning the non-presumptives, and the 

6 claims that were, were provided, 442. Do you 

7 recall what extent skin played into that? 

8 MR. NELSON: No, I don't know that 

9 one. I would imagine it's a pretty good 

10 number. 

11 DR. NETON: Yes, because if it --

12 pretty much what you have left is the, is the 

13 skin, skin cancers, and then the other non14 presumptives like prostate and -- I can't 

15 think of the others -- non-Hodgkins lymphomas 

16 and those types, would not get much internal 

17 dose, and it's in likely a place like Paducah,

18 you would get a lot of penetrating deep dose 

19 sufficient to get over 50 percent, so --

20 MR. FITZGERALD: No, that's why I 

21 was a little curious, because --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Most of those are going 

2 to be skin cancer. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: -- would be skin, 

4 and you would need to, I guess, come up with a 

5 source term to, or some kind of assumed --

6 DR. NETON: Yes, well, it's 

7 probably mostly modeled based on a uranium 

8 source term, a U-238 source term with 

9 protactinium 234m, that sort of thing. And you 

10 get a couple hundred mR per hour around a 

11 fairly sizable chunk of uranium. 

12 MR. FITZGERALD: But you'd have to 

13 assume sort of a bounding assumption for 

14 exposure, you know, for the average worker 

15 exposure. 

16 DR. NETON: Yes. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: And that's kind of 

18 what, I think, you get right down to it, 

19 that's kind of where this comes from, in a 

20 way. That's, you know, what is, you know, what 

21 is the, what is the data you're using to come 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 up with that, and --

2 DR. NETON: Right. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: -- how do you 

4 apply it, and maybe that's not appropriate for 

5 a Site Profile, but somehow there's that 

6 algorithm that exists because you're certainly 

7 compensating on the non-presumptive, and 

8 that's what's curious on skin, if skin's being 

9 compensated, there has to be some middle 

10 ground as to what gives you that probability 

11 of causation. 

12 DR. NETON: I don't want to put 

13 Jack Fix on the spot, but I heard he was on 

14 the phone. Jack, do you -- do you recall what 

15 we're using for skin dose estimates for 

16 workers? At Paducah? 

17 (No response.)

18 DR. NETON: Jack's not on. 

19 MS. WINSLOW: This is Susan 

20 Winslow. I'm not sure if -- I know Jack was 

21 going to be on and off a little bit--
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Okay. 

2 MS. WINSLOW: I know during dose 

3 reconstruction, if we do have evidence of a 

4 skin cancer, we have used VARSKIN and 

5 Microshield depending on the situation and 

6 then that particular case, what's necessary, 

7 what gives us the best estimate. 

8 DR. NETON: Right, but don't we 

9 have some coworker shallow dose estimates or -

10 - 

11 MR. NELSON: Yes, we do--

12 MS. WINSLOW: Well13 MR. NELSON: It's in the coworker, 

14 so we do have skin dose there. 

15 DR. NETON: Okay, and that's 

16 probably, we picked some very, probably, for 

17 an unmonitored worker, we'd take something 

18 like the 50th percentile, I suspect, which -- 

19 MR. NELSON: Right, it really comes 

20 down to, I think, the issue here is dealing 

21 with the extremity dose. Because we do have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 coworker data that shows you for skin dose, 

2 but extremity dose, like a lot of sizes. 

3 Sometimes difficult to determine exactly what 

4 it is. 

5 But one thing to look at, I know 

6 we did this for Portsmouth, Susan, but --did 

7 we get the number of extremity skin cancers 

8 for this particular facility? 

9 MS. WINSLOW: No, I'm sorry. I 

10 don't have it. 

11 DR. NETON: See, I'm wondering if 

12 it may be that the doses we're assigning for 

13 shallow dose for the coworker model is so high 

14 that you could have fairly large number of 

15 skin contaminations, of minor -- of short term 

16 duration that would be trivial compared to 

17 what we're assigning based on a -- on the 

18 coworker model. 

19 MR. NELSON: Yes, and you got to 

20 remember, coworker dose almost always includes 

21 missed dose --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Exactly, that's what 

2 I'm saying --

3 MR. NELSON: -- maximizing the 

4 number of zeroes, it's --

5 DR. NETON: Especially for a 

6 uranium type facility. You don't, you don't 

7 get a lot of dose per hour to the skin. It's 

8 not as high as you would think. And, you know, 

9 if you compare it to what we're assigning 

10 based on the external shallow dose delivered 

11 from the coworker model, probably be a very 

12 small percentage. 

13 MR. NELSON: Well, when you look at 

14 the coworker model, I got the page open right 

15 now, and what you'll see is, for the -- the 

16 facility started in 1953, and they worked, 

17 obviously, until present. But, in 1960 and 

18 `61, that's -- initially they had just the 

19 most highly exposed workers monitored. 

20 DR. NETON: Right. 

21 MR. NELSON: So what you're going 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to see in this table is that the doses are 

2 much higher for the first, I guess that's 

3 seven or eight years. And then when they start 

4 monitoring everybody, the dose actually falls 

5 --

6 DR. NETON: Right. 

7 MR. NELSON: -- off to a much 

8 smaller --

9 DR. NETON: Do you have a feel for 

10 what levels they are there?

11 MR. NELSON: Well, like, in the --

12 let's pick 1955 because that's a couple years 

13 after they started. We go to the 95th 

14 percentile for gamma dose, it's 2.7 rem, and 

15 the shallow dose, or non-penetrating, is 4.8 

16 rem. 

17 DR. NETON: Yes. See, that's a 

18 fairly high number --

19 MR. CALHOUN: For someone who's not 

20 monitored, that's, --

21 DR. NETON: We're kind of getting 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 away from the original question, which is how 

2 do we deal with external skin contamination. 

3 And I do think that we probably ought to put 

4 some kind of brief discussion, a blurb, about, 

5 pay attention to it, and if you do find --

6 MR. CALHOUN: It's in -- it's in 

7 the external IG. 

8 DR. NETON: Is it in the external 

9 IG? 

10 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, it is. 

11 DR. NETON: Okay. 

12 MR. CALHOUN: There's a whole 

13 section about skin contamination--

14 DR. NETON: I thought there was. 

15 MR. CALHOUN: -- how to do dose 

16 calculations using VARSKIN. 

17 DR. NETON: All right, I remember 

18 that distinctly. Okay, so then, maybe just 

19 something like a reference to the external IG 

20 in the Site Profile, description. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: I suspect that --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what's the date on the IG? 

2 MR. CALHOUN: Let me get up to the 

3 top, here. 

4 MR. FITZGERALD: One problem too, 

5 is our comments are almost four years old --

6 MR. CALHOUN: The IG should be -- 

7 is, you know, I don't know what -- but it's 

8 been around --

9 MR. NELSON: It's been around --

10 DR. NETON: I have a recollection 

11 that it might have been modified to 

12 incorporate that --

13 MR. CALHOUN: Effective date is 

14 November of `07, and I don't know if the 

15 record of Revision will tell me anything --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, see, that, 

17 that followed the Site Profile comments so it 

18 would not have been referenceable at that 

19 time. 

20 MR. CALHOUN: But that was Rev. 3, 

21 though. So this --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

2 MR. CALHOUN: -- has been around 

3 for a long time. 

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Well I think 

5 these --

6 MR. CALHOUN: These were -- these 

7 were our first two documents --

8 DR. NETON: But see, Rev. 3, I 

9 think, probably if you looked at it, 

10 incorporated this VARSKIN business because 

11 this is fairly fresh in my mind, and I'm

12 pretty sure it wasn't in the original revision 

13 of the external implementation guide. 

14 MR. CALHOUN: I don't see that, but 

15 --

16 DR. NETON: Anyway, so --

17 MEMBER BEACH: And it wasn't part 

18 of the answer, either, which is interesting. 

19 DR. NETON: So I think what you 

20 should do is, you know -- in the Site Profile, 

21 discuss briefly about, you know, precautionary 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 note about external contamination, look for 

2 that in the record, if it's found, and then 

3 reference the implementation guide for 

4 guidance as to how to -- how to proceed. 

5 MR. CALHOUN: And any time there is 

6 a skin contamination identified and there's a 

7 skin cancer and the contamination is even 

8 remotely close to that cancer location, a 

9 separate calculation is done. That happens. 

10 I've seen it. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. So, I think 

12 that sounds like a reasonable approach. 

13 DR. NETON: Chuck, you're recording 

14 our action? 

15 MR. NELSON: Yes, I am. 

16 DR. NETON: I'm sensitive about 

17 that because Ted's a tough taskmaster. 

18 MR. KATZ: Is that item closed? 

19 MEMBER BEACH: No, it's not closed. 

20 DR. NETON: We have an action item 

21 to modify, you know, see if there's some 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 language in the TBD --

2 MR. KATZ: No, I know you have that 

3 action item, but it sounded like there was 

4 concurrence that that was the appropriate 

5 thing to do, and no uncertainty about the 

6 nature of that revision, right? 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, in that 

8 context, that would be closure in that 

9 context. 

10 MR. CALHOUN: One thing we need to 

11 think about, though, is that, you know, this 

12 isn't it -- the IG was out there to be an 

13 overarching document, and we don't have a 

14 statement in every external section of every 

15 TBD and coworker model that says, look at --

16 look at skin contamination. 

17 I mean, it's just something that 

18 we do. So, you know, unless we plan on 

19 changing every TBD, that way --

20 DR. NETON: That's -- you got a 

21 good point there. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: I think, well, I 

2 think, again, I think the intent on the 

3 finding was just that there was -- I've seen 

4 the different Site Profiles and have reviewed

5 different Site Profiles, so this one seemed to 

6 be rather scant on an approach, referenceable 

7 approach to the -- to coming up with a 

8 bounding. And I realize the reference would be 

9 to the IG, but, again, discussion of what 

10 available information there is on extremity 

11 exposure, on contamination --

12 DR. NETON: Yes --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: I mean, it just 

14 seemed like there wasn't much there, and I, I, 

15 the handoff to the IG, I think, is perfectly 

16 good, but I think there's got to be something 

17 on the front end as well. 

18 DR. NETON: We'll take a look at it 

19 and --

20 MR. CALHOUN: Yes -- my guess is, I 

21 think ever DR actually references the IG. I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. I'd have to look at that, but --

2 DR. NETON: Yes, I think it 

3 probably does. 

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe that's 

5 something that, in addition to agreeing to 

6 agree, also ask that, you know, maybe we can 

7 get a -- some feedback for the next session, 

8 the next Work Group meeting. 

9 DR. NETON: And Joe -- Joe made a 

10 good point. I mean, this is a -- these are 

11 non-presumptive chances we're dealing with, 

12 and -- largely, skin cancers, in general. So 

13 we -- it might behoove us to be a little more 

14 -- we should always be careful, but in this 

15 case, be a little more specific. Because 

16 that's -- that's the bulk of the cancers that 

17 we -- get. A large percent.

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Issue six, 

19 and jump in if you want a break, but issue six 

20 is moving to the Occupational Environmental 

21 Dose TBD, 19-4. And I think, again, the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 question here was, you know, the basis for 

2 applying the site boundary measurements. 

3 It wasn't clear how that would be 

4 the basis for an on-site ambient number, and I 

5 thought the response was very informative. I 

6 wish it was in the Site Profile. So, actually, 

7 I don't, you know, my only comment is that, 

8 just lift what you have here, basically, 

9 provide that basis in the next revision and 

10 you've got it. 

11 MR. NELSON: I agree -- we worked 

12 on that one a bit, and I think it --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

14 MR. NELSON: -- some clarifying 

15 information and --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: This -- this nails 

17 it pretty clearly as to where that basis is, 

18 where that comes from. I didn't see it in the 

19 description of the Site Profile, so if that's 

20 satisfactory to the worker, I would just 

21 recommend that, since you've done all the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 heavy lifting already, just use some of this 

2 language. 

3 MR. KATZ: Phil, is that good? 

4 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I don't have a 

5 problem with that. You're going to modify the 

6 TBD with the --

7 MR. NELSON: Yes, I think it, it 

8 would be, and Susan, do you agree with that? I 

9 mean, we spent some time on that, trying to 

10 nail this down and get it straight in our own 

11 heads. And I think that meant, at least to me, 

12 that maybe that section was lacking some. 

13 And I think we can put some 

14 clarifying information there so that the dose 

15 reconstructor can extract that out there. I 

16 know they get used to doing a certain thing, 

17 but, you know, if you have a new dose 

18 reconstructor, he can go to the TBD and, and 

19 pull that information out of there more 

20 readily. So I think it warrants a --

21 clarifying that the TBD. Do you agree? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: She said -- she 

2 said --

3 MS. WINSLOW: Yes, I agree. 

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. Closed. 

5 MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know if 

6 anyone wants -- I don't want to be too oblique 

7 for somebody that's on the phone. If anyone 

8 wants additional perspective on what this 

9 issue is, we're kind of cutting to the quick, 

10 I guess you might say. 

11 But certainly the lengthy 

12 information, the basis provided in the matrix 

13 response, we think, is pretty much, clarifies 

14 the question that we had in the original 

15 review. Okay. Moving to issue seven. 

16 Occupational Internal Dose, this 

17 is TBD 19-5. And this really comes down to the 

18 information that was provided in two, two 

19 particular sources. One was the PACE report in 

20 2000, the PACE Utah report in 2000. 

21 And the Bechtel Jacobs report in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 2001, two -- which are two sort of salutary 

2 evaluations that were done at Paducah. And I 

3 think, and I'm speaking in general, because 

4 some of the issues that follow kind of are the 

5 same -- of the same ilk. We just felt that the 

6 2004 version of the internal TBD did not 

7 borrow enough from those two references. 

8 And, we felt that there was 

9 information in those two references which were 

10 particularly important. And, in our 

11 evaluation, sort of comparing side by side the 

12 2004 with the 2007 TBD, we found that both 

13 references, again, the 2007 came up, came out 

14 seven or eight months after the -- our review 

15 did. 

16 We found that the -- both 

17 references were in fact cited and included and 

18 information drawn from both of them in the 

19 TBD. So to make a long story short, while the 

20 source term concerns that we had in terms of 

21 missing information are not missing in that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sense anymore. 

2 So in this regard, the two 

3 references are included in the 2007 version. 

4 Now, keep in mind, again, the Site Profile 

5 review was looking at the existing TBDs that 

6 were there, and those were the 2004 versions, 

7 so in this particular case, I think NIOSH had 

8 the advantage of being able to see our 

9 findings for six or seven months before the 

10 issuance of the next version. And, to their 

11 credit, I think they made these changes. So 

12 this one, again, I think could be closed. 

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Anybody have 

14 any objection to it being closed? Objections 

15 or comments. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. And, again, 

17 go to issue number eight, which deals with 

18 table 5-2. And this subject is isotopic 

19 fractions for the various enrichments. We felt 

20 that there wasn't enough characterization on 

21 those fractions that were provided in that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 table. 

2 And the specific example was the, 

3 for example, the specific activity, U-235 at 

4 93 percent feed, which appears to be a factor 

5 of ten too low. Some of this gets back to the 

6 enrichment levels soon, but in general, and I 

7 guess I would want you to explain how that was 

8 done. 

9 But you chose to replace 5-2, 

10 which I guess was an earlier approach, with a 

11 new table of isotopic concentrations, and 

12 these were tied to the specific Paducah 

13 operations themselves, which I think is a 

14 superior approach. 

15 But certainly that's much 

16 different than the isotopic fraction table, 

17 and use of that table in the 2004 TBD. So I'll 

18 leave it to you to explain that. But I think, 

19 you know, that kind of makes our comment a bit 

20 moot because it's a different approach 

21 entirely. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. NELSON: Actually, I -- these 

2 ones that you guys agreed with, I didn't spend 

3 a whole lot of time on them. So I can't 

4 elaborate too much -- I can tell you, for 

5 table 5-2, the -- actually it comes out in 

6 another comment a little later because Walt 

7 took an objective -- objection to one of the 

8 mass concentrations we were using. 

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

10 MR. NELSON: And, but basically 

11 this table came from a Bechtel Jacobs 1991 

12 document. It was actually cited incorrectly on 

13 table 5-2 in the current TBD. And, on note A, 

14 we actually need to make a change to that, and 

15 we found the correct reference. 

16 But what they did is they assumed 

17 2 percent enriched uranium, then they tied the 

18 other contaminants, transuranics and 

19 technetium fission products and all the things 

20 from recycled uranium, as I had mentioned 

21 earlier. They tied those to the uranium 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concentrations in this particular case. But 

2 it's all based on 2 percent enriched uranium. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: And that's based 

4 on the -- what year --

5 MR. NELSON: This is a 1991 Bechtel 

6 Jacobs internal dosimetry Technical Basis

7 Document. So we pulled these activity 

8 concentrations --

9 MR. FITZGERALD: That was the 

10 original table 5-2. 

11 MR. NELSON: Okay. What, I was, 

12 thought you were referring to the one in the 

13 current --

14 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I was just 

15 saying, the -- that's -- the Bechtel Jacobs 

16 `91 is the -- is the basis for the new table--

17 MR. NELSON: Right. 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: The isotopic 

19 fractions, where did that -- I mean, I -- was 

20 derived from an earlier source of information 

21 --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. NELSON: I'm not sure on that 

2 one, quite honestly. 

3 MR. CALHOUN: I think, now, that 

4 this, you know, this goes back a long ways, 

5 but I don't know if you remember but there was 

6 a -- quite a bit of attention placed on the 

7 Paducah internal isotopic fractions. And I 

8 want to say that that PACE report was involved 

9 with this, and we had a significant review of 

10 this by even folks outside of DCAS. 

11 And that's where we ended up with 

12 a change in the neptunium ratios, and I want 

13 to say that the neptunium ratios went up and 

14 this -- in a converter room that was a really 

15 high sample found from historical 

16 documentation and so that caused us to raise 

17 neptunium concentrations. 

18 I believe that that's where these 

19 came from, but I can't say for sure because, 

20 I mean, it was a long time ago, and--

21 MR. FITZGERALD: That makes more 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sense to me because the `91 -- the PACE 

2 analysis and the -- those were early two -- I 

3 guess it was late `99, 2000. And that 

4 information was, you know, they spent a lot of 

5 time digging through Paducah, that was a big 

6 flap in `98. 

7 So I can understand why that 

8 information now would be more conservative, 

9 more complete. But the original table, I 

10 think, must have been based on something. 

11 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

12 MR. FITZGERALD: You're saying 

13 Bechtel `91, that just --

14 MR. NELSON: No, I was referring to 

15 the activity concentration for uranium itself. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

17 MR. NELSON: And, I mean, if you --

18 that would be the last four entries in the 

19 table 5-2. That only came from Bechtel Jacobs 

20 1991. Then the other constituents are the 

21 contaminants from recycled uranium. Those were 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 accounted for via the PACE and other documents 

2 -- 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, which is 

4 what you're --

5 MR. CALHOUN: And I believe that's 

6 what spurred the PER that he was speaking of 

7 because we ended up raising the concentrations 

8 of neptunium in some of those locations.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: But, anyway. I, I 

10 think, in some, the new isotopic table 

11 obviously is up to date, and a better approach 

12 than -- I think we just had some problems with 

13 the use of the isotopic fractions, some of the 

14 fractions raise a questions. But I think, 

15 again, this makes it moot, so I would 

16 recommend it -- close it --

17 MEMBER BEACH: So you don't think 

18 you need to go back and look at that in your 

19 table, and --

20 MR. FITZGERALD: No, we've looked 

21 at the table, and the references. The problem 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was the approached used isotopic fractions and 

2 the information was, I think, outdated. But, 

3 again, the TBD in 2004 would have been 

4 developed in probably 2003, so some of this 

5 more recent information probably didn't find 

6 its way into it. That's kind of the concern 

7 when we were going through it. 

8 MEMBER BEACH: And I think the one 

9 I see in here is 2006. Rev. 1. 

10 MR. NELSON: We're on 00 let's see, 

11 2007, Rev. 2 right now. 

12 MEMBER BEACH: Rev. 2? Okay, so I 

13 haven't got to ---

14 MR. NELSON: For internal.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: For internal, 

16 right. And the biggest distinction, again, is 

17 this more current information because they 

18 did, after the `98 `99 flap, it, they did 

19 spend a lot of time digging though, through

20 the PACE review as well as the Bechtel Jacobs 

21 internal review, going through that, the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 source term information. 

2 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

4 MR. KATZ: Phil? Closed? 

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Item nine, which 

7 is table 5-4, which I think is again going to 

8 be a similar -- this is the pre and post BJC 

9 and Bechtel Jacobs and PACE report because the 

10 prior version of TBD, I think, seemed to leave 

11 out a number of the recycled uranium isotopes. 

12 You're talking about neptunium, 

13 you know, the Bechtel Jacobs report 2001 they 

14 have a table which includes maximum 

15 concentration, technetium, neptunium, MPU for 

16 eleven specific operations at Paducah --- I 

17 don't know, Grady, if this was what you were 

18 referring to, but, you know, the -- that 

19 information didn't seem to be reflected in the 

20 version that we looked at four years ago. 

21 You might want to take a look at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 and just --

2 MR. CALHOUN: I just don't know; it 

3 was too long ago --

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, right. That 

5 particular, and we actually cite the table 

6 from the 2001 reference --

7 MR. CALHOUN: I can't imagine that 

8 it's not in there --

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I can't 

10 either, but just to verify that. That would 

11 close this issue out. That's all we're saying, 

12 is that reference, that table from Bechtel 

13 Jacobs provides the maximum concentrations for 

14 different -- for the eleven different 

15 operations at Paducah, it came out --

16 MR. NELSON: It's listed as 

17 reference B, down there, and it's --

18 MR. FITZGERALD: In 2007. 

19 MR. NELSON: Correct. It says PACE 

20 and University of Utah, 2000. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. So the --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 but the -- I guess the validation would be if 

2 those values -- how those values were actually 

3 applied. Because our response was we found the 

4 reference. That was our response. We found the 

5 reference in the 2007 TBD. 

6 So I would say closed pending 

7 verification that the maximum concentrations 

8 were reflected for the isotopes -- R -- the 

9 recycled uranium isotopes. 

10 MR. KATZ: Okay, then, in our 

11 parlance, it's in abeyance. 

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: But I, like I 

14 said, I think from our standpoint, we found 

15 the reference and the, you know, the 

16 presumption is that the, it would have been 

17 done, but we haven't gone through and --

18 MEMBER BEACH: So it's a NIOSH --

19 action? 

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Just to verify 

21 that those maximum values are reflected. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 SCHOFIELD: Okay. Then 

2 let's move on to number ten unless anybody has 

3 objections. Anybody on the phone?

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Number ten, 

5 I think the original TBD cited the standard 

6 five micron AMAD for assumed particle size, 

7 and I think we found in the 2007 version that 

8 the table that included the particle sizes was 

9 deleted, this is 5-5. And that's pretty much 

10 just a statement of fact, that, you know, it's 

11 not there. 

12 And I guess the question would be, 

13 given the variety of and range of particle 

14 size at Paducah from fume level up to, you 

15 know, five or six micron, what would -- what 

16 would be the -- what would be assumed particle 

17 size for dose reconstruction? 

18 MR. NELSON: I'm not 100 percent. I 

19 would think it's five, though. 

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, five is sort 

21 of the --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. NELSON: Default. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: -- default, but 

3 I'd be curious in specific operations where 

4 you had, maybe .5, which is sort of fume 

5 level, how that would be addressed. 

6 MR. NELSON: Well, typically we 

7 base all our internal dose on urine levels 

8 anwyays, so that's typically how we're 

9 reconstructing dose for monitored employees. 

10 DR. NETON: Well, but the particle 

11 size would affect the urine output. I guess 

12 the question is do we have a lot of 

13 information -- it seems like this comment says 

14 that there are -- there's information contrary 

15 to particle size, distribution is not five --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, in the Site 

17 Profile review, we cite some of the documents 

18 that point out the fume -- size particles all 

19 the way up to, fairly -- I think in, in 

20 general five would probably work for most of 

21 the plant. There's some operations involved 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 were much less than five. 

2 DR. NETON: Well, I think, I 

3 haven't read these, but if there are 

4 references that are cited that support a 

5 different particle size then we probably need 

6 to look at them and address them in some 

7 fashion. 

8 MR. NELSON: Like I said, I didn't 

9 spend much time on these ones that you all 

10 agree, but --

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, yes. When we 

12 did a comparison, we noted, you know, if table 

13 5.5 had an issue and it disappeared, it sort 

14 of raised the question, I was just going to 

15 put that as a placeholder that it was deleted, 

16 but to raise it as a, as sort of a question as 

17 to what you're --

18 DR. NETON: It seems to me just 

19 taking out the particle size references 

20 doesn't -- doesn't address the -- 

21 MEMBER ANDERSON: Hi, this is Andy. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 just signed on. I'm going to be in and out 

2 most of today but I just called in. 

3 MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks, Andy. 

4 MR. FITZGERALD: I guess, Ted, just 

5 leave that one open or --

6 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

7 DR. NETON: I guess, mostly, it 

8 would be affected in the gaseous phase that 

9 we're talking about, versus -- most 

10 particulate operations that I'm aware of are -

11 - five is pretty reasonable. 

12 MR. FITZGERALD: I think so. 

13 There's some specific operating --

14 DR. NETON: You have gaseous stuff 

15 running around, you got bigger problems than 

16 particle size. 

17 MR. CALHOUN: But, you know, 

18 reality would be a little gaseous, it would be 

19 --

20 DR. NETON: That was from a 

21 different, yes, so--
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. CALHOUN: -- and we're going to 

2 be a -- we never assign F unless it's--

3 DR. NETON: Yes, but let's not --

4 we'd have to look at that and then address 

5 why, you know, particle size is -- I think we 

6 can do that. We need to close that loop, I 

7 think. Otherwise you end up with hydrochloric 

8 acid inhalation issues and all kinds of other 

9 stuff. Those would be -- those would be 

10 incidents. 

11 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. For the most 

12 part, the dose is going to be higher using 

13 MRS. 

14 DR. NETON: Well --

15 MR. KATZ: -- have a response. 

16 Okay. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: I'm trying to find 

18 the references, but they're in here. 

19 DR. NETON: Yes, I, you know, I 

20 have looked at them, but that's -- we need to 

21 at least address them in some -- 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: Okay. That's item 

2 ten. Item eleven. This is list and quantities 

3 of transuranics addressed but not completed, 

4 from a claimant favorability standpoint. And 

5 this is, again, table 5.5. And I think in this 

6 case it was the scope of TRU cited, only 

7 neptunium and plutonium were cited. 

8 But recycled contained more than 

9 those two, i.e., 238, 240, and 241. And, 

10 again, same issue. The table was deleted, and 

11 going back to the BJC reference, I would 

12 assume that -- this can hang on the 

13 resolution, I think it was, what, issue number 

14 nine. To what extent the 2001 Bechtel Jacobs 

15 report was reflected for maximum 

16 concentrations of trace materials and recycled 

17 -- I mean, it's the same issue. 

18 Table 5.5 only cites those two 

19 transuranics, not the other ones. So I would, 

20 Phil, just recommend that this one sort of be 

21 combined with -- make sure I get the right 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 one. 

2 MEMBER BEACH: Nine. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Number nine. And, 

4 in terms of just verifying, essentially, that 

5 the maximum concentrations of constituents and 

6 recycled feed were from a Bechtel Jacobs 

7 document was reflected in the -- in the new 

8 version of the -- the existing version of the 

9 TBD. The reference is there, but the question

10 is whether it was fully reflected, and this 

11 would answer this one, too.

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: When was table 

13 5.5 last updated, by any chance? 

14 MR. NELSON: To what, 5.2? 

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

16 MR. NELSON: It was updated on 

17 4/4/07. That was after the SC&A comment, so --

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes --

19 MR. NELSON: -- a lot of these were 

20 taken into account --

21 MR. FITZGERALD: These tables that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we're citing, 5.2, 5.5, they were deleted in 

2 the 2007 version and replaced by either 

3 another table or just not, you know, not used 

4 in the latest version, so. 

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: My thinking 

6 here is I'm just wondering if they've actually 

7 come back and looked at the particle size and 

8 stuff. Are you comfortable with what you 

9 found? 

10 MR. NELSON: I think --

11 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: And the 

12 constituents of the recycled tailings. 

13 MR. NELSON: I think the answer to 

14 the particle size is that we need to look at 

15 it more closely and see if there's any 

16 particular facilities we need to call out, and 

17 I think the best documents are the PACE report 

18 and Bechtel Jacobs 2000, 2001 reports. 

19 So I think that action being 

20 number ten for the particle size and the 

21 different radionuclides to make sure we have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 most limiting radionuclide in the 

2 particular table is 9 and 11. So I don't know, 

3 I don't think we're going to find any more up 

4 to date information than those PACE documents 

5 and Bechtel Jacobs documents. I think that's -

6 - 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that's the 

8 common theme, I think, to this section, is 

9 that those two documents are critical 

10 documents and -- the references in the 2007 

11 TBDs but there is still some question, and we 

12 noted that and gave credit to that, but 

13 there's still some question about how they 

14 were applied on these specific issues. And 

15 that's what we're talking about. 

16 MR. NELSON: We go, we go through 

17 the exercise and look through the numbers and 

18 verify that these in fact are most limiting 

19 which we expected they are. Should be able to 

20 say that, but I didn't spend a whole lot of 

21 time on that. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: So we agree. 

2 MR. KATZ: So this is in abeyance. 

3 And, Andy, just to bring you up to date, so 

4 far we've gone through issues, if you look at 

5 the matrix that DCAS sent out maybe two weeks 

6 ago, we're -- they -- we've closed issues one 

7 through eight, so everybody is in agreement. 

8 And it basically is reflected by 

9 the responses in the DCAS column of that, so 

10 that's where we are. Nine, ten, and eleven, 

11 nine and eleven are in abeyance for the 

12 discussion you've just heard, and ten is open. 

13 DCAS is going to respond -- respond to that. 

14 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. Okay. Great. 

15 MR. KATZ: So that brings you up to 

16 date, anyway. 

17 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes. 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that, so that 

19 would be coupled with issue number nine and 

20 held in abeyance. 

21 MR. KATZ: Right. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: Number twelve. 

2 This goes to the same table, and, again, that 

3 table's been deleted, but we still have some 

4 questions. This is on absorption type. My 

5 question on the replacement table, this is 

6 table 5-1 of the 2007 TBD, the internal TBD,

7 is -- it seems -- I don't have this in front 

8 of me, but it seems like certain facilities 

9 were dropped from what I could tell. 

10 C710, which is the analytic lab, 

11 C410, C420, which is feed plants. Basically 

12 the C400-series facility, I mean, this is 

13 facility by facility in terms of absorption 

14 types, right, this replacement table. 

15 And I just looked at the facility 

16 list in the original TBD and compared it with 

17 the table here, and it seems like there's a 

18 series of facilities that got dropped and I'm 

19 just, maybe you can help me verify that. But I 

20 couldn't find some of the 400-series 

21 buildings. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 they seem like pretty relevant 

2 buildings, 360, 400, 409, 420, 410, C710 --

3 MR. NELSON: I've seen all those so 

4 far. 

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. I'll have to 

6 take another look. 

7 MR. NELSON: Yes. Every one of 

8 those have been there, maybe in a different 

9 location --

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

11 MR. NELSON: They're there. 

12 MR. FITZGERALD: That was one 

13 question. Just making sure that it was 

14 complete list. And in terms of the actual 

15 absorption class that would be assigned that 

16 would be, and, you have, for some of them, you 

17 have all three classes listed. That would be a 

18 function of the dose reconstructor making a 

19 judgment call. 

20 MR. CALHOUN: Actually, they'll run 

21 them all, and whatever one that --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: -- thought it was 

2 approaching that. Okay. With that 

3 qualification and that confirmation, then I 

4 think we're fine on issue twelve. Phil? Josie? 

5 Do you have any questions on that? 

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: No. 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

8 MR. KATZ: Andy? 

9 MEMBER ANDERSON: No, no questions.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

11 MR. KATZ: Closed. 

12 DR. NETON: Can we take a short 

13 break? 

14 MR. KATZ: Want a break? 

15 DR. NETON: Yes. Short comfort 

16 break. 

17 MR. KATZ: Comfort break. So sorry, 

18 Andy, you just joined us, but --

19 MEMBER ANDERSON: Yes, I'm on break 

20 here. Making great progress. 

21 MR. KATZ: Okay, okay, so we'll 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 break until -- how much time do you need, 

2 folks? Ten minutes? Okay, so about -- about 25 

3 of, 35 after. Whatever. 

4 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay, I'll call 

5 back in then. 

6 MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks. 

7 (Whereupon, the above entitled 

8 matter went off the record at 10:27 a.m. and 

9 resumed at 10:40 a.m.)

10 MR. KATZ: Andy, are you back with 

11 us? 

12 (No response.) 

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, we can carry 

14 on, I think, anyway. We're on item thirteen. 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this is Joe 

16 Fitzgerald. Item thirteen deals with, again, 

17 the occupational internal dose TBD for 

18 Paducah, and focuses on table 5-6, where there 

19 are intakes based on the bioassay data needed, 

20 in terms of frequency of sample collection. 

21 Our -- I guess our concern there 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was the default frequency which was provided 

2 in that original 2004 TBD which provides for a 

3 four week interval as the default frequency. 

4 And we pointed out in our review that the 

5 intervals on some individuals could be as long 

6 as a year, and I think the NIOSH response as I 

7 read it was, you know, these default 

8 frequencies were not used when assessing 

9 individual's dose in any case, that the actual 

10 sample dates would obviously be applied. 

11 But I would say if they were 

12 available. And the reason for the default, you 

13 didn't have the actual dates. And my question 

14 is on the -- so what would you do on the 

15 defaults for the -- where the -- that 

16 information is missing. 

17 MR. NELSON: Well, if an individual 

18 didn't have bioassay, then we would use a 

19 coworker TIB and assign dose that way. 

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Now would it be 

21 assumed from this that you always have the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sample dates if you had the data? I --

2 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: -- I think that's 

4 the presumption here.

5 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: So then that 

7 raises the obvious question why would you have 

8 default frequencies in the first place.

9 MR. NELSON: That's a good obvious 

10 question. 

11 DR. NETON: I was thinking that 

12 myself. I don't know why -- why we have a --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: You know, again, I 

14 didn't do this review myself, but I --

15 DR. NETON: Right, it doesn't make 

16 sense that we would take the default frequency 

17 --

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. So I 

19 thought there might be some data that didn't 

20 have --

21 DR. NETON: We should probably 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 remove that language. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: With that instant 

3 realization, can we dispatch that? 

4 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

6 MR. KATZ: Closed? 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

8 MEMBER BEACH: So let me 

9 understand. We're going to take out the table, 

10 or the -- just the language? 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, there's some 

12 confusion cause by the default --

13 MEMBER BEACH: Language. 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: -- frequencies 

15 that were provided -- and the default one 

16 seemed to be relatively short compared with 

17 what we knew for some of the frequencies. And 

18 I think the realization is that, you'd, if in 

19 fact you get the sampling dates with the data, 

20 in all cases, then you don't need a default 

21 frequency. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 BEACH: Then you don't need 

2 the default, okay. I just wanted to make sure 

3 --

4 MR. FITZGERALD: But, you know --

5 MEMBER BEACH: -- I was clear on --

6 MR. NELSON: We'll strike the 

7 default frequency. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: I mean, I don't 

9 know, is there any -- I can't think of any 

10 reason --

11 DR. NETON: There's no reason for 

12 that. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Moving to item 

14 fourteen. This deals with table 5-7 in terms 

15 of MDC, minimum detectable concentration's not 

16 clearly defined. This was a case of just, you 

17 know, I think, in terms of due diligence to 

18 reviewers, we're walking down the MDCs in 

19 terms of the actual reference documents behind 

20 the MDCs. 

21 And they found some discrepancies. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Not all the MDCs were tied to a reference. And 

2 our -- when I went back and compared the 2007 

3 to 2004, again, I think because of NIOSH's 

4 response to these findings that were provided 

5 in October of 2006, the additional reference 

6 were --references had been added and -- more 

7 specificity in the reports. 

8 So, again, I think, clearly the 

9 authors of the 2007 version didn't look at the 

10 finding and did reflect that -- those 

11 references. So I would recommend that be 

12 closed. 

13 MR. KATZ: Closed. 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Issue fifteen. 

15 This issue has come up in the past. This is a 

16 question of -- of the -- the day of sample 

17 collection, you know, whether it's over a 

18 weekend, you know, I think you addressed this 

19 almost at every site as to how you actually 

20 handle that. 

21 And I think your comment is a good 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 one. I mean, I think the reviewers at the time 

2 had a -- certainly a legitimate concern. But 

3 this is a programmatic issue that has come up 

4 in all the sites, as far as sampling date. And 

5 I guess the only question is this -- isn't 

6 this referenced in a OTIB now, this whole 

7 sampling --

8 DR. NETON: No --

9 MR. FITZGERALD: -- day thing? 

10 DR. NETON: -- I don't think so. 

11 This is a -- still a point of contention, I 

12 think, at Y-12 --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: It was Y-12 or 

14 someplace --

15 DR. NETON: It was Y-12 -- 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Y-12 --

17 DR. NETON: Y-12, Monday morning 

18 samples, and especially for soluble materials. 

19 And even though this response says it's a 

20 programmatic issue, it really -- well it can 

21 be a programmatic issue, but it has to be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 evaluated on a site by site basis, because if 

2 in fact the coworker model is based on samples 

3 that were taken on Monday morning after two 

4 days away from the work place -- I agree, it 

5 could affect the values of the coworker 

6 models. 

7 So I think this needs to be 

8 evaluated against what we know about the data. 

9 You know, I don't think it's -- it's not going 

10 to solve anything by saying it's a 

11 programmatic issue and pigeonhole somewhere 

12 else because it is programmatic in the sense 

13 that it happened at a number of places, but it 

14 also needs to be evaluated on a site by site 

15 basis. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, remember the 

17 Y-12 example as a matter of establishing, you 

18 know, the fact that there was a varying 

19 frequency in -- Y-12 was over a weekend, and -

20 - 

21 DR. NETON: Yes, and I think that's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what the implication is here. See, that Y-12 

2 is still open. We -- I think we had a response 

3 that said it was not necessarily the case that 

4 they were always taken on Monday. There were 

5 some instances --

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

7 DR. NETON: -- and in fact, the 

8 instances that did occur didn't necessarily 

9 bias the data terribly. This is a new one to 

10 me, so -- we'd have to go back and look at the 

11 data to see if there's any justification or 

12 rationale behind this, and make some sense --

13 MEMBER ANDERSON: Hi, this is Andy. 

14 I'm back on. 

15 MR. KATZ: Hi, Andy. Welcome back. 

16 MEMBER ANDERSON: You're up to 

17 number 20 now? 

18 MR. KATZ: No, no -- only on 15. 

19 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay. 

20 DR. NETON: Well, I think it's 20, 

21 isn't it? Oh, 21. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 BEACH: 21. 

2 MEMBER ANDERSON: Okay. 

3 DR. NETON: Well. The day of the 

4 sample collection would certainly be taken 

5 into account if it was an individual dose 

6 reconstruction. That's not really a problem. I 

7 think the only place this really becomes a 

8 problem is if we've established a coworker 

9 model that assumes certain things, like the 

10 worker left a urine sample right after he was 

11 done working that day, and it was a very 

12 soluble material. 

13 And he was off -- off for work for 

14 48 hours, it would bias low his -- the Class's 

15 exposure model. So in that context, I think we 

16 need to go back and see what we've done for 

17 the chronic exposure model for Paducah. I 

18 really don't know. 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: But I guess the 

20 assumption is that the modeling would be 

21 somewhat analogous to Y-12, as far as what the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 approach would be. 

2 DR. NETON: Right, and I, you know, 

3 I don't know, this suggested there were some 

4 workers that would collect samples one or two 

5 days off from work. I don't know how 

6 frequently, or maybe there's a certain type of 

7 workers who were in the more soluble -- forces 

8 the plant to have more soluble material, 

9 should maybe they be segregated -- I really 

10 don't know. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

12 DR. NETON: I think this needs to 

13 be looked at from that perspective. 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: So you would --

15 DR. NETON: It would make no 

16 difference in my opinion on -- individual dose 

17 reconstructions using -- because you know the 

18 day it was taken --

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

20 DR. NETON: So we need to go back 

21 and look and see how it would affect the --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: Coworker --

2 DR. NETON: -- assuming a chronic 

3 coworker internal model. 

4 MR. NELSON: Yes, we do. 

5 DR. NETON: We need to go back and 

6 see if this one to two days off issue would 

7 have any --

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

9 DR. NETON: -- real significant 

10 affect on the values in that model. 

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. So this is in 

12 progress --

13 DR. NETON: Yes. 

14 MR. KATZ: -- this issue. 

15 DR. NETON: Yes. 

16 MEMBER BEACH: NIOSH doesn't 

17 actually --

18 MR. KATZ: And DCAS has an action 

19 item. 

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Phil, Josie, 

21 anything on that? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 SCHOFIELD: All right. I 

2 just got one question on this. I know this 

3 question is going to come up among people who 

4 have claims, and they're going to say, well, 

you know, if I got it on January 3rd 5 , and my 

6 last sample I gave was, you know, December 

29th 7 , and the next one is six months down the 

8 road, how are you going to deal with that. Is 

9 that going to be just on a case by case basis, 

10 or is that going to be --

11 MR. NELSON: Typically, it's done 

12 on a case by case basis. They look at the 

13 records that are, the -- the bioassay records 

14 that they have, then they have to fill in the 

15 gaps. If there's no information there, they 

16 have to assume worst case, and develop a -- an 

17 intake based on the missing data, and do it in 

18 the claimant favorable manner. 

19 DR. NETON: We would assume that 

20 there was some chronic intake that occurred --

21 what could have been a chronic intake to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 result in this bioassay sample on day x, 

2 barring any known incidents that occurred, 

3 that would have happened. 

4 And we've been gone this path 

5 several times, demonstrate typically that ends 

6 up being claimaint favorable to assign this 

7 chronic intake over an extended period of time 

8 with, yes, you could have had an intake way 

9 back here, but, you know, we're still 

10 assigning all of this chronic dose that --

11 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. That 

12 seems like a reasonable approach. 

13 MEMBER BEACH: And then does that 

14 go back to the coworker model again? 

15 DR. NETON: The coworker model is a 

16 different issue. The coworker model would only 

17 be applied if a person had absolutely zero 

18 bioassay data. 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

20 DR. NETON: And in the absence of 

21 any bioassay data at all, they were not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 workers, then you would take the 50 

2 percentile -- depends on the site, but more 

3 often than not it would be the 50th percentile 

4 of all the monitoring data for the monitored 

5 workers, and you'd develop a model for that. 

6 Depends on how much data we have, whether it 

7 would be year specific or a decade specific 

8 number, but that's how we would approach it. 

9 MR. NELSON: Many times, you would 

10 see it being assigned environmental levels, it 

11 depends on the individual's job function. 

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. I guess, 

13 unless anybody else has another question, we

14 can move on. 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Number 

16 sixteen really deals with an issue that comes 

17 up a lot with the Site Profiles is the degree 

18 to which significant incidents are cited or 

19 listed or referenced as far as history at the 

20 site. And I think, again, the finding was --

21 there wasn't very much information on the --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what would be the significant instance that 

2 would contribute to internal dose. 

3 And sort of a corollary to that 

4 was -- and I'm just reading from our finding, 

5 is that this whole question about, you know, 

6 when the actual event-driven bioassay was 

7 taken and how that might actually affect the 

8 dose estimation. 

9 And I think the answer on that 

10 particular issue, which is provide a NIOSH 

11 response, I'll let Chuck go through that. I 

12 think it sounds reasonable. But I think the 

13 overall question of the treatment of major 

14 historic incidents that would, you know, guide 

15 dose reconstructors is something that I guess 

16 I'm still a little concerned about. 

17 DR. NETON: Yes. This is sort of an 

18 old issue that we've been through --

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

20 DR. NETON: -- and our position has 

21 been that if we're -- we rely very heavily on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 routine monitoring program, so workers who 

2 have -- routine samples, whether they be 

3 annual, monthly, quarterly samples, are 

4 indicators of past exposures. 

5 And, again, we would assume that 

6 the chronic exposure would have occurred -- 

7 what kind of chronic exposure, day in, day 

8 out, could have occurred to have all the 

9 bioassay samples available for that person be 

10 below a certain value? And that's the way we 

11 would approach it. 

12 So if in fact there were an 

13 incident in there, that incident would be 

14 included in this sort of exposure that we're 

15 providing. So our opinion is that the chronic 

16 exposure model is a bounding value that would 

17 address any of these minor incidents that 

18 occurred. 

19 You could say, well, there's a lot 

20 of incidents. Well, then, a series of very 

21 acute short incidents ends up being a chronic 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 exposure at some point, so that's been our 

2 position. You can argue that maybe for 

3 unmonitored workers, but then you'd have to 

4 look at what class of workers that represents.

5 And typically, if the highest 

6 exposed workers were monitored, the 

7 unmonitored workers had a lower exposure 

8 potential. Thus the chance for these incidents 

9 would have been lower, and in fact the 

10 coworker model that's developed would have 

11 included incident samples, as well, in that 

12 model, so. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it sort of 

14 comes down to whether the coworker --coworker 

15 model would include --

16 DR. NETON: Well, we make no --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: -- a definition. 

18 DR. NETON: -- differentiation, 

19 unless there's some very obvious outliers, I 

20 mean, we would include all data in the 

21 coworker model, but it would tend to bias it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 somewhat high because we're --

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

3 DR. NETON: -- assuming some 

4 chronic exposure. 

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Because that would 

6 include missing -- missing data. 

7 DR. NETON: So, you know, this was, 

8 we've been down this path in a few different 

9 sites, and I suspect that this review was done 

10 before we maybe hashed out some of these other 

11 sites. 

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. So I guess my 

13 comment that the response on the thirty minute 

14 issue, which is the sampling time, I think, 

15 was addressed, and I agree that we've been 

16 down this path on the question of incidents, 

17 but this is some variety in the Site Profile. 

18 Some Site Profiles do go through some effort 

19 to provide a historic list of the more 

20 significant incidents, and some don't. I think 

21 this is more in the vein of there doesn't seem 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to be much in the way of perspective provide 

2 on that. 

3 MEMBER ANDERSON: And -- this is 

4 Andy. The -- I mean, these incidents tend to 

5 be what a lot of the workers focus on, or at 

6 least the workers' families -- minor and 

7 didn't cause any real upsets, and they didn't

8 even know about it. But you just have to be 

9 sure when you look at the Site Profile that 

10 does provide some recognition that these 

11 occurred. 

12 DR. NETON: Yes. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: I guess you can go 

14 back to what you said earlier, Jim, it's just 

15 sort of a question of are we talking about the 

16 likelihood of a lot of, you know, you know, 

17 relatively minor instances involving 

18 additional exposures that would by and large 

19 be picked up by the routine bioassay, where 

20 there were some major incidents that would 

21 figure. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But almost without exception, the 

2 workers would have been monitored, you know, 

3 because I think the only implication is that 

4 whether or not they would have been not 

5 monitored and would have to be picked up in 

6 the coworker approach. 

7 DR. NETON: Yes. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: I can't imagine 

9 there's anything else that would be a gap.

10 DR. NETON: Right, because I mean, 

11 the coworker model incorporates these minor 

12 incidents --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

14 DR. NETON: -- and we're assuming 

15 they're chronic exposures. You know, I think 

16 there are some scenarios that we've -- that 

17 we've gone through, where you can --if the 

18 incident occur -- it was an annual sampling 

19 frequency, and the incident occurred the day 

20 after he left -- you could come up 

21 theoretically with a slightly higher exposure 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 based on --

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

3 DR. NETON: -- but the, you know, 

4 you've got to go into the likelihood of this, 

5 the likelihood of that occurring, you know --

6 day in, day out. And, again, I think, you look 

7 at the, the people who were not monitored at 

8 the site, and it, if we, if we do make the 

9 case that the highest exposed workers were 

10 monitored, then you're looking at a class of 

11 workers with much lower potential for 

12 exposure. 

13 And you're assigning at least the 

14 50th percentile of the chronic urinary output 

15 of the monitored workers, who were typically 

16 the ones that were in the processing areas 

17 doing things, you know, the real process 

18 operations, chemical operators and such. 

19 So we believe that that's a fairly 

20 claimant favorable assignment of an internal 

21 dose if the person was in the workplace. That 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 include people such as security guards, 

2 crafts folks, those that have no monitoring, 

3 and in fact there are crafts folks that would 

4 have monitoring, obviously, but the ones that 

5 weren't, because, typically a reason, and 

6 usually that's because they weren't routinely 

7 in the areas working with loose materials. 

8 That's been our position pretty consistently 

9 from the beginning of this program. 

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: One quick 

11 question. May -- hopefully you'll know the 

12 answer to this one. We talked about the thirty 

13 minute interval for taking urinalysis. Did 

14 they use nasal smears? 

15 DR. NETON: In Paducah? I --

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

17 DR. NETON: -- don't know if they 

18 did or not. They might have.

19 MR. NELSON: Let's see. I'm not 

20 sure, but I can look and see. 

21 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Because I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 don't remember seeing it in the --

2 MR. NELSON: I think urines --other 

3 than urines. 

4 MS. WINSLOW: This is Susan. I 

5 don't believe there's any indication of nasal 

6 smears --

7 MEMBER BEACH: I haven't been --

8 MR. KATZ: Who was that speaking? 

9 MS. WINSLOW: This is Susan 

10 Winslow. 

11 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Susan. 

12 MS. WINSLOW: Yes. In the records, 

13 we haven't seen any indication of any nasal 

14 samples. 

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

16 MEMBER BEACH: I guess the question 

17 would be do some of these incidents need to be 

18 recorded in the Site Profiles? You said that 

19 there's been a lot of discussion back and 

20 forth -- what's the conclusion -- what have 

21 the conclusions been? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Our opinion is that if 

2 you have a person who is on a routine bioassay 

3 sample, that will capture any incidents that 

4 have occurred because, you know, the body is 

5 sort of a long-term integrator of exposure. If 

6 you had an incident in May, and you leave a 

7 urine sample in June or July, that June or 

8 July sample is going to reflect what's in your 

9 body from that, or what could possibly have 

10 been there. 

11 And even if it is negative, or not 

12 negative, but non-detectable, we'll assume 

13 that it's at some level that could have been 

14 there and not been detected. So, you know, 

15 it's -- a long-term integrator of your 

16 exposure. That's one of the nice things about 

17 bioassay samples. Long-term integrator of 

18 exposure. So --

19 MR. NELSON: And we do make 

20 reference to these PACE documents and others, 

21 and actually they go into pretty good detail 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on incidents that occur, they have some nice 

2 tables and --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: None of which 

4 would change this position. 

5 MR. NELSON: Right. 

6 DR. NETON: This is very much --

7 this is exactly like what we do at almost 

8 every other site. Paducah is no different than 

9 we would do at Fernald or Rocky Flats or 

10 Savannah River or any site that has a routine 

11 bioassay. 

12 MR. FITZGERALD: But with the 

13 reference to the PACE document, I just think 

14 that provides a backdrop on the history, at 

15 least on the incident history that I think the 

16 original reviewer found a bit wanting. 

17 MR. NELSON: There is a table here, 

18 and I'm not sure if it was there before, it's 

19 table 5-8. And it references PACE but it also 

20 calls out some incidents. Fires, explosions, 

21 cascade improvement -- program. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 BEACH: Doesn't really give 

2 a lot of information, you know? 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: It's illustrative 

4 examples of different types of incidents. I'll 

5 take a look at the PACE document and just 

6 confirm that that's, you know, that would be 

7 responsive, so SC&A will take the action of 

8 looking at the PACE document, going back on 

9 that particular issue and just reporting back 

10 to the Work Group. 

11 But I think the overall 

12 explanation is fine. I do think we can just 

13 validate that that provides what the Site 

14 Profile may not have provided back in 2004. 

15 Maybe a reference on that table 5-8 to the 

16 PACE document, would, I guess it's drawn from, 

17 to some extent, from the -- from the PACE 

18 document, is that right, Chuck? 

19 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, so --

21 MR. NELSON: It cites it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 specifically. 

2 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, as a source 

3 document. 

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, and maybe 

5 expanded footnote to say that more complete 

6 listing is available in that document or 

7 something like that, you know, would help. 

8 Okay, so SC&A will take the action to look at 

9 the PACE report and if NIOSH can maybe expand 

10 that footnote a little bit -- reference to 

11 kind of point the dose reconstructor or 

12 somebody to that more complete listing of 

13 incidents. 

14 MR. KATZ: This sounds like in 

15 abeyance? 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I'll go back 

17 and take a look at the PACE document. 

18 MR. KATZ: An action item. 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Is that --

20 Phil? 

21 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, I think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we're ready to move on there, so. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Going to item 17. 

3 This gets to the coworker model for applying 

4 the bioassay data, and I think this is a 

5 somewhat meaty issue in the sense that, 

6 looking at the way this was treated in the 

7 previous documents, there was some concern 

8 that, you know, that without having the 

9 workers, and this is not necessarily a new 

10 issue, this has come up at other sites as 

11 well. 

12 Not having the workers classified 

13 by their jobs or by the building location 

14 would make it difficult to apply the model in 

15 a conservative way, and I'll let you, you had 

16 a pretty detailed response, maybe go through 

17 that. 

18 DR. NETON: Can I ask a question 

19 before Chuck responds? 

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

21 DR. NETON: Is there a coworker 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 actually in the Site Profile in the 

2 internal dosimetry section? Or do we have a 

3 standalone TIB --

4 MR. NELSON: We have a standalone 

5 TIB. It is --

6 DR. NETON: So is this -- I guess 

7 that's my question. Is this comment referring 

8 to the coworker model as a standalone TIB or -

9 - 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I guess the 

11 timing of the TIB --

12 MR. NELSON: Actually, the TIB 

13 existed in 9/20/05.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: That's a good 

15 question because the findings in the TBD --

16 DR. NETON: Yes, see, that's what's 

17 confusing me a little bit. 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Let me just go 

19 back and just make sure on that. 

20 DR. NETON: I think that's number 

21 five, let me see --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: Now this is issue 

2 ten, page 43 of the Site Profile. 

3 DR. NETON: Okay. 

4 MR. FITZGERALD: According to a 

5 more general guidance document on the use of 

6 coworker bioassay data, Brackett, 2005. Is 

7 that the OTIB? 

8 MR. NELSON: That's Ikenberry, 

9 2005. Brackett 2005 is probably internal --

10 actually, I don't -- the latest one wouldn't 

11 be Brackett. Yes, the latest one's Mantooth 

12 Barton. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, the 

14 references is to Brackett, 2005--

15 MR. NELSON: Which might be the 

16 previous one. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Yes, one 

18 thing is the baseline of what is used in the 

19 review, and I think in this particular finding 

20 it is the -- if you go back we actually list 

21 the Brackett, 2005 reference. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: See, I'm not sure why -

2 - see, I was -- what I'm thinking is normally 

3 we have been using coworker models for quite 

4 some time, and we -- it's very often use the 

5 entire workforce and pick a percentile of the 

6 distribution to bound unmonitored workers. 

7 And SC&A has in the past raised 

8 some issues around the suitability of using 

9 all workers. But my sense in this comment is 

10 that SC&A didn't go back and find some 

11 evidence that there was an issue, as they 

12 would -- like at Fernald, they would go back 

13 and look and pull out representative samples 

14 of people who may have had higher exposure. 

15 Sort of a general critique of the 

16 concept. And I'm not sure where we would go 

17 with that. I mean, lacking any evidence that -

18 - 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: I guess it's just 

20 a question that would be useful to answer 

21 because I think this particular finding of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going generic versus going facility specific 

2 or job specific. One, the question is what is 

3 the basis for that. And the reviewer raises 

4 some questions about the lack of a statistical 

5 or quantitative basis for the hypothesis, as 

6 it's called, that Brackett provides in that 

7 reference. 

8 And it goes on to talk about 

9 Ikenberry, not identifying the jobs that 

10 would, had led to a higher probability of 

11 intake and the differences in the 

12 concentrations in different buildings. So I 

13 think the concern that's being raised, and 

14 you're right, it's being raised in an 

15 overarching sense that it's not clear, you 

16 know, whether -- what the basis for going in a 

17 more generic way, applying a coworker upper 

18 bound would be for Paducah, given that there's 

19 some questions about the exposures in 

20 different facilities. 

21 So I think it is the same issue, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 older issue, that's been raised before --

2 DR. NETON: Right, but it's -- I 

3 don't see any substance behind it other than -

4 - well, let me -- I'm trying to find the --

5 MR. FITZGERALD: This is page 43 of 

6 the Site Profile. 

7 DR. NETON: Yes, that's a summaries 

8 issue though. I don't see where it talks about 

9 the specific section that we've -- I mean, 

10 there's 153 pages here -- somewhere in here 

11 there would be a more --

12 MR. NELSON: See, I put what pages 

13 the -- it's either on 15, 43, and possibly 46, 

14 is what I got --

15 DR. NETON: 43 and 46 are just the 

16 summary --

17 MR. NELSON: Summaries. 

18 DR. NETON: -- of all the issues. 

19 MR. NELSON: Other than that, I --

20 DR. NETON: It would somewhere be 

21 in -- embedded in the --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. NELSON: Yes, I had to put 

2 specific pages for issues because it does, you 

3 know, it mentions it then it discusses it 

4 more, maybe later in the document --

5 DR. NETON: That's what I was 

6 looking for, where --

7 MR. FITZGERALD: If you look at 

8 page 46, I tend to agree that there's more 

9 details provided in 46 as far as the model as 

10 applied. 

11 DR. NETON: Well, see, I don't know 

12 that there's a coworker model in -- bear with 

13 me just one second here -- the internal dose. 

14 It's only a 25 page document. I can't believe 

15 there's a coworker model. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Certainly OTIB-31 

17 provides an upper bound for the entire plant. 

18 Doesn't get into specific facilities.

19 DR. NETON: See, there's nothing 

20 in the TIB that talks about a coworker model 

21 that I can see. Because it's got -- detection 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 limit, isotopic concentrations, methods. Maybe 

2 page 16, let me look at that real quick. 

3 MEMBER BEACH: There's a external 

4 coworker data, but that was 2005. 

5 MR. NELSON: Well, if you look on 

6 page 6, they're -- they cited where they got 

7 their source of information. Some historical 

8 files. The one of them called Historical 

9 Urinalysis Data, which is 107,000 urines, and 

10 there's another one called Paducah Historical 

11 Urine which is 52,568 urine samples. 

12 DR. NETON: Is this just the review 

13 of a TIB, or is this also got, I mean, Site 

14 Profile or a TIB as well? Because there's not 

15 any coworker information in the Site Profile 

16 that I can find, not --

17 MR. CALHOUN: There used to be, I 

18 think. 

19 DR. NETON: That's probably it --

20 MR. NELSON: They might have pulled

21 it out when they revised the 2007 --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: See, that would be my -

2 - 

3 MR. CALHOUN: I believe that the 

4 GDPs had coworker tables in them. I'm fairly 

5 certain that they did. 

6 DR. NETON: Now, there's a -- not 

7 only the standalone TIB, and that's, I guess, 

8 I'd rather address a review of TIB-31 --

9 MR. CALHOUN: Right. 

10 DR. NETON: -- than to be 

11 commenting on something that used to be in --

12 this is one of those disconnects because --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, yes, it's 

14 the time frame. My comment, actually, I didn't 

15 finish it, but basically it's, you know, the 

16 issue of non specific work location for 

17 coworker dose data, table A1 of 31, still has 

18 not been resolved. So, you know, we did look 

19 at 31 to see if that would provide a answer to 

20 the original issue that was raised in the TBD.

21 And it's not clear to us, you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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, if it's been answered. I mean, there 

2 isn't a job and or facility specific approach 

3 in 31. That may be perfectly fine, and it may 

4 just be an upper bound -- well, you know, 

5 based on the worst case or whatever. 

6 DR. NETON: Well, one way that 

7 we've addressed this issue in the past is that 

8 if you have -- and we have, there's a 

9 procedure out there that sort of lists job 

10 categories that you would view as being, you 

11 know, more heavily exposed -- operators --

12 more intermittently exposed versus 

13 administratively exposed. 

14 And we would typically take the 

15 50th percentile for the unmonitored workers 

16 who were actually in the plant but not working 

17 directly with processed material. However, we 

18 do allow for a possibility that, and I think 

19 you make a suggestion in there that what if 

20 it's a chemical operator and his information 

21 is just lost? Then we would use the 95th 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 percentile on the distribution to reconstruct 

2 the exposure. 

3 MR. NELSON: In this case, it's

4 84th percentile. 

5 DR. NETON: 84th? Okay. 

6 MR. NELSON: And this is OTIB-37. 

7 DR. NETON: Right. 

8 MR. NELSON: 31 is the external. 

9 DR. NETON: Okay. So 37. The only 

10 way to resolve this is for -- if we went back 

11 and tried to find every possible job category 

12 and demonstrate this equivalence. I don't know 

13 --

14 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I guess the 

15 question is that, you know, this sort of goes 

16 back to the original basis for the coworker 

17 model. I mean, obviously there's a strong -- a 

18 guiding assumption that there's no unmonitored 

19 workers that would have necessarily had doses 

20 that exceeded monitored workers. As a job 

21 category or as a facility. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 that's -- one can make that 

2 transparent that going in, you know, finding 

3 or assumption. That clearly was the guiding 

4 assumption, not going -- you know, picking out 

5 facilities or job categories. 

6 DR. NETON: Typically, I think 

7 that's true that in internal dosimetry 

8 program, workers with the highest potential 

9 for exposure were monitored. I'm not saying 

10 the highest in the plant --

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

12 DR. NETON: -- but worker with a 

13 demonstrable possibility of exposure. 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

15 DR. NETON: And so, therefore, that 

16 leaves the unmonitored workers, who have no 

17 monitoring data, a lower potential level of 

18 exposure, and we believe we can use the 

19 monitored workforce to bound the unmonitored 

20 workforce. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: That doesn't mean 

2 though that there aren't some people that had 

3 higher exposures and could have had their

4 records lost or such. And we typically would, 

5 during the dose reconstruction, look at that 

6 and take that into consideration. 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, we just, we 

8 did look at 31 for the reason that you're 

9 citing because that's clearly where it is now, 

10 that approach is laid out. That wasn't -- that 

11 did not jump out. I mean -- and maybe it's 

12 because, you know, the model is the model and 

13 the basis and the assumptions that went into 

14 the model are not necessarily going to be 

15 included and laid out in the OTIB itself. 

16 But, you know, the basis for the 

17 coworker approach I think is what we're 

18 talking about here in the overarching, and 

19 really is a higher level question of how 31 

20 was derived and whether it satisfies this sort 

21 of question that came out of the TBD review 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 says, you know, the basis isn't too 

2 clear. 

3 DR. NETON: I mean, we could 

4 restate what we're saying here is that we 

5 believe that those with the higher potential 

6 for exposure were monitored and that use of 

7 that distribution unmonitored workers would be 

8 claimant favorable. Sort of the underlying 

9 tenet of the --

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, that was 

11 kind of what was in the Brackett reference 

12 that was cited, that, you know, participation 

13 in bioassay protocols workers have the largest 

14 potential of exposure, and our finding was, 

15 however, there isn't any, you know, there 

16 doesn't seem to be any hard basis behind that 

17 hypothesis. 

18 DR. NETON: Well, the only way that 

19 I think that this could be invalidated or --

20 would be, remember, with external, we've gone 

21 down this path where we have the, I think Hans 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 called it the cohort model or cohort 

2 monitoring program, or whatever it was, where 

3 you would sample representative portions of 

4 the workforce and not all people. 

5 And I think in this case at 

6 Paducah we don't feel that's the case. This 

7 would be all workers -- if you were a chemical 

8 operator and you're working in a plant, all 

9 chemical operators were leaving urine samples.

10 It wasn't that they sampled 10 

11 percent of all chemical operators to make sure 

12 that the workplace controls were in place. 

13 They sampled everybody. And so that -- in that 

14 sense, then, we believe the coworker approach 

15 is valid for us addressing unmonitored 

16 workers' exposures. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: And then the 

18 supposition at the bottom of 43, which is the 

19 design of the program, whether you can make 

20 the assumption--I think, again, this is going 

21 back a bit in time and the actual reviewer is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 longer available to us. 

2 But, you know, that question of 

3 whether there's some evidence that the 

4 unmonitored workers would necessarily have 

5 lower probabilities of exposure. 

6 DR. NETON: Well, I think they did 

7 because when they say all workers, I don't 

8 really think they mean all workers. They mean 

9 all workers who entered areas where there was 

10 a potential for exposure. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: For rad control 

12 areas. 

13 DR. NETON: Yes. That's my opinion. 

14 I mean, we can verify that, but -- 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: I think, as far as 

16 a path forward, you know, since clearly, 31 

17 wasn't reviewed back in 2004, and I guess 

18 there's a couple different pathways. We could 

19 evaluate more for the Work Group the coworker 

20 model, but I would say maybe the best way to 

21 approach the coworker model is just to maybe 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 understand from NIOSH the going in premise for 

2 the approach that's laid out, and just have 

3 that down as a statement before going into it 

4 because I -- I'm not so sure we have a 

5 technical issue with the coworker model. 

6 Certainly don't propose you go through all the 

7 data and do what we do on SECs, for example. 

8 But I think this original issue was just the 

9 premise and the justification for the approach 

10 more than that, which I think is a more of a 

11 overarching question rather than a technical 

12 question. 

13 And what's laid out here is some, 

14 you know, the same arguments were raised but 

15 not, you know, no basis beyond the statement 

16 that's provided right there. I mean, it's 

17 unlikely that an unmonitored worker would have 

18 received a larger dose than the most highly 

19 exposed monitored worker. I think that's a 

20 reasonable -- that's a reasonable statement. 

21 MR. NELSON: -- doing the coworker 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 document, I don't know what else we would do 

2 besides that because I think that's going to 

3 be -- 

4 DR. NETON: Well, maybe we can 

5 expand and clarify on this, where they talk 

6 about all workers being monitored --

7 MR. NELSON: Where exactly is that?

8 DR. NETON: It's at the bottom of -

9 - 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Bottom of 43. 

11 DR. NETON: -- 43. They're saying, 

12 well, all workers were monitored, therefore --

13 MR. NELSON: In the SC&A document?

14 MR. FITZGERALD: SC&A review. 

15 DR. NETON: -- Site Profile review. 

16 And I think we can clarify what that really 

17 means by all workers, you know, I think that's 

18 all workers who frequent the radiological 

19 areas more, in my opinion, we need to verify 

20 that. And sort of beef that up a little bit. 

21 But, short of, I don't know what 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 else we would do --

2 MR. FITZGERALD: I guess sort of 

3 the -- and this may be a general rationale for 

4 not basing coworker, you know, a coworker 

5 assignment to a more specific facility or a 

6 job categorization. I think the assumption is 

7 you can do that site wide. And it would be 

8 worth trying to slice and dice it, right? 

9 DR. NETON: Well, if it is true 

10 that the highest exposed workers were 

11 monitored, then a coworker model to apply the 

12 unmonitored workers would bound, it would just 

13 --

14 MR. FITZGERALD: I'm just saying, 

15 one would bound all. 

16 DR. NETON: I would -- that's my 

17 opinion. You know, one can slice the salami 

18 pretty thin where you're going to find some 

19 areas where you might not be able to prove 

20 that. But I just feel in general, that's been 

21 our position for quite some time that -- I'd 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 hard pressed to show me a worker who was 

2 unmonitored, think, a security guard who --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: That wouldn't be 

4 bound by --

5 DR. NETON: Wouldn't be bounded by 

6 a worker who was working with a process 

7 material day in, day out, in the plant and on 

8 a routine bioassay program. I just find that 

9 implausible circumstances --

10 MR. CALHOUN: Well, you got to 

11 figure what would you do anyway at that point. 

12 How would you figure that out? We could make 

13 it an SEC. 

14 DR. BEHLING: This is Hans Behling. 

15 Can I make a comment here? 

16 DR. NETON: Sure. 

17 DR. BEHLING: When I reviewed the 

18 data, it came to my attention that when I 

19 looked at some of the documents that I 

20 included as exhibits, that in fact there truly 

21 was in the days prior to 1960 a process that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we referred to as cohort badging, where on a 

2 rolling basis, you had people who were being 

3 monitored, not consistently for every 

4 monitoring period, but maybe once in a year 

5 you were assessed and then, and the next group 

6 would be monitored and so forth. 

7 And I think the attempts during 

8 those periods of time when you look at the 

9 numbers who were monitored and I think I go 

10 through a fairly extensive explanation based 

11 on the data that was identified in the 

12 original tables about how many people in any 

13 given year. And when you add up and when you 

14 look at the exhibits, in any given period of 

15 monitoring there were only like, maybe, 20, 

16 30, 40 people monitored, and yet in a year 

17 there were 226 for 1953. 

18 And you realize that the 220-some 

19 odd people who were monitored were not 

20 monitored for every -- for every wear period. 

21 In other words, you may have records that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 represent 200 and some odd people for that 

2 year, but, in truth, not all of those people 

3 were monitored for each and every wear period.

4 And what I uncovered, what looks 

5 like, to be a cohort badging program, which is 

6 probably justified given the fact that 

7 everyone would like to at least know that if 

8 I'm working here but I'm not monitored that 

9 the guy next to me was monitored and if his 

10 exposure was within the limits than I can be 

11 reasonably sure that I'm also within limits. 

12 But what it really means is that 

13 when you have that group of data or that data 

14 phase that represents a large group of 

15 individuals of different assignments in the 

16 plant, you will end up with a coworker model 

17 that will possibly not be favorable to select 

18 people who were at the high end who may not 

19 have any monitoring records because of the 

20 cohorts badging program that was in place. 

21 And I think I was fairly detailed 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 looking at the sequence of numbers of 

2 people who were monitored by year. For 

3 instance, the difference between `59 and `60 

4 and `61, you -- all of sudden, there's an 

5 increment of 1100 and some odd people who were 

6 added, and this in fact increased these years 

7 when there were fewer numbers, only the 

8 maximum in the exposed individual monitored 

9 you wouldn't expect a shift in the 

10 distribution which I've clearly showed was the 

11 case. 

12 In other words, you were not 

13 necessarily monitoring the most exposed 

14 individuals in early years when there was a 

15 limited fraction of workers being monitored. 

16 And so, as I've said, you can solve this 

17 problem by saying, okay, in days past, and 

18 I've seen Jim Neton mention it previously, 

19 that a coworker model is a reasonable 

20 surrogate for assigning doses to unmonitored 

21 workers. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But if you can conclude that not 

2 necessarily all of the highest exposed people 

3 were part of the database that represents the 

4 coworker model, were in fact monitored, then 

5 you have to maybe perhaps back away and say, 

6 okay, who is this person for whom we have no 

7 data? 

8 Was he perhaps a member of a 

9 higher exposed group for whom there is no 

10 information in terms of his exposure? And then 

11 maybe not necessarily assign the geometric 

12 mean. This is where I think SC&A has been very 

13 vocal about the use of perhaps the 95th 

14 percentile value in those instances where you 

15 suspect that it is not necessarily a case 

16 where maximum individuals represent the 

17 coworker model. 

18 DR. NETON: Yes, I agree with all 

19 you just said, Hans, but in this particular 

20 case on finding 17, we're talking about 

21 internal bioassay data. And I don't know that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- did you do a similar analysis of the 

2 bioassay data? 

3 DR. BEHLING: No, I didn't. In 

4 fact, I'm probably jumping ahead to item 19 --

5 DR. NETON: Right, yes, I think you 

6 are --

7 DR. BEHLING: But it may be 

8 possible that the internal exposure sampling 

9 was followed, it's in the protocol again, 

10 saying that you need to monitor everybody 

11 regardless of what your job classification is 

12 and perhaps that the same philosophy applies 

13 to internal monitoring as well. 

14 DR. NETON: Right, and I agree that 

15 if cohort badging or monitoring were in a 

16 place, then, you know, I also agree that we --

17 need to be careful in what percentage of 

18 distribution we assign. I think we're okay 

19 with that. 

20 MS. BRACKETT: This is Elizabeth 

21 Brackett. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Yes. 

2 MS. BRACKETT: I have information 

3 about the internal dosimetry --

4 DR. NETON: Okay, good. 

5 MS. BRACKETT: -- coworker study. 

6 First, I should mention that I am conflicted 

7 with Paducah. But I have the spreadsheet of 

8 the number of samples and, in fact, 1960 and 

9 earlier, it looks like the largest numbers of 

10 people were sampled on a quarterly basis we 

11 have between 600 and 1000 individuals sampled 

12 each quarter for Paducah. 

13 There's more than 120,000 bioassay 

14 results for the time frame of which the 

15 coworker study covers, but starting in 1953, 

16 there's at least 600 employees each quarter 

17 submitting samples. And more than double that 

18 number of samples per quarter. 

19 DR. NETON: Okay, thanks, Liz. I 

20 think that's helpful, and maybe that's part of 

21 our response to this -- this issue is that we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 looked at the data, the distribution of the 

2 number of samples taken. We believe that it 

3 somehow we can make the case that the highest 

4 exposed workers were indeed monitored based on 

5 numbers and such. And just move on. 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think the 

7 original review didn't really question the 

8 number of samples --

9 DR. NETON: Right, and that's what 

10 I was expecting --

11 MS. BRACKETT: And that actually, 

12 unfortunately there's no numbers included in 

13 the coworker study. I thought that at a 

14 minimum we usually included the total number 

15 of samples, but that doesn't seem to have been 

16 addressed in the actual document of the 

17 coworker study. So you wouldn't have been, you 

18 wouldn't have known that anyway in looking at 

19 it. 

20 DR. NETON: Okay. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Which, I think, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 -- they are looking -- I think the issue 

2 was looking for something that was harder, and 

3 I think that's what you're providing, which is 

4 the statistical basis which is what was kind 

5 of called out in that finding. So I think that 

6 would help provide that information that was 

7 seen as lacking. 

8 MR. NELSON: If you look in the 

9 coworker study, it does call out the files 

10 where it came from, but it doesn't -- I 

11 actually had to look it up to see how many --

12 MR. FITZGERALD: This is 31 --

13 MR. NELSON: -- urine samples it 

14 was. This is 37. 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: 37. 

16 MR. NELSON: 37. Yes. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. So. Okay, 

18 37. 

19 MR. NELSON: There is reference to 

20 the document from which it came from. However, 

21 the numbers of urines are a distribution of, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you know, per year. That's not provided. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, well, I tend 

3 to agree. I think that's probably the path 

4 forward, then, to respond to this issue. This 

5 is really looking for a basis, something that 

6 would be more than the admonition or a 

7 statement, I think that would help. 

8 MR. NELSON: So you're looking for 

9 some information placed in the coworker 

10 document that justifies where the numbers came 

11 from --

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, recognizing 

13 again that the context of this finding is 

14 going back to the TBD, not the OTIB -- not the 

15 coworker OTIBs. So, to some extent, I think 

16 this is providing a response based on the new, 

17 newer OTIB, internal coworker model 37. 

18 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: My recommendation 

20 is with that response for, based on OTIB-37, 

21 which really wasn't focused in on the 2006 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 review that we did, that would, that would 

2 respond to the issue here of not having 

3 something harder on the coworker --

4 MEMBER BEACH: And what's the 

5 revision date on 37? 

6 MR. NELSON: It is 9/20/05. I know 

7 you wrote the report in `06, I'm not sure when 

8 you started it, the review. 

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it's not --

10 MR. NELSON: So it might have 

11 happened in the middle of your review, I don't 

12 know. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Ikenberry is 

14 cited, but it's basically Brackett, 2005, and 

15 Ikenberry is the -- is what's referenced. 

16 MR. NELSON: Well, Ikenberry is, is 

17 -- the TIB-37. 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, again, 

19 Ikenberry it cited, the model described by 

20 Ikenberry did not--

21 MR. NELSON: Okay. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: So that issue in 

2 terms of jobs, the specificity on jobs in 

3 facilities is based on that review. But this 

4 question of a statistical basis to this 

5 question of unmonitored workers not having 

6 higher exposures, that issue I think would be 

7 responded to by what Jim's talking about, 

8 which is a, and what Liz brought up, which is 

9 --

10 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: -- you know, some 

12 of the actual measures, so. 

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: So you guys 

14 are going to go back over OTIB-37 and -- give 

15 it a little more explanation? 

16 MR. NELSON: I think that's what we 

17 agreed to. 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think the 

19 data itself is referenced but it's not laid 

20 out and--

21 MR. NELSON: We could provide some 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 detail to give some depth to what was 

2 actually done --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: So we may, you 

4 know, the original reviewers in terms of SC&A 

5 may not have burrowed into the actual data, 

6 the data wasn't available for the Site Profile 

7 review. I think some of that would have, would 

8 have fell out of that, but it didn't, so --

9 MEMBER BEACH: What about 31? 

10 Anything going to happen with 31? 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think 

12 we're going to get into 31 with Hans, and we 

13 haven't gotten --

14 MEMBER BEACH: In 19. Okay. 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: -- we haven't 

16 gotten into the external yet. 

17 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. We're still 

19 on internal. 

20 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you. 

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. So this is in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 abeyance, and --

2 MR. FITZGERALD: And more on -- a 

3 clarification. I -- my sense is that the 

4 original review did not burrow into the OTIB5 37 in a way which got to the data, which would 

6 have answered some of these issues. This is 

7 what Liz brought up --

8 MR. KATZ: But are you happy with 

9 what you've heard --

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

11 MR. KATZ: -- to note, be 

12 comfortable that the solution is already --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I, you know, 

14 the major, key concern here would be just the 

15 scope and availability of the data itself, and 

16 on the bioassay side, I don't think that's a 

17 question. I think there is a lot of data, and 

18 I think Liz reminded us of that, but I think 

19 that data itself would be the basis for 

20 answering the question, why is there a comfort 

21 level in terms of --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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: So that we can close 

2 this, and --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Pending, you know 

4 --

5 MR. KATZ: And they'll provide that 

6 --

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

8 MR. KATZ: -- response. 

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I wouldn't, I 

10 wouldn't propose for the workers that we 

11 would, you know, start doing a classic 

12 evaluation of the coworker model itself. I 

13 don't think there's any issue stemming from 

14 the Site Profile based on that. 

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Close that? 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: 18 deals with the 

17 method of converting mass concentrations of 

18 uranium 24 hour secretions of activity -- this 

19 is very specific technical question, and if 

20 I'm not mistaken, I think this is also tied to 

21 the assumed enrichment level. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. NELSON: Yes. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: And we addressed 

3 that earlier, as a question, so that flows 

4 down and influences this, these values as 

5 well. So if one goes with the 2 percent, then 

6 I would assume this issue pretty much goes 

7 away. Because, again, this issue comes from 

8 the 5 percent value that I think the original 

9 reviewers had. Okay, so close that.

10 MR. KATZ: Closed. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Hans, since you 

12 were the, reviewer on the external, do you 

13 want to walk through the remaining issues on 

14 the external side? 

15 DR. BEHLING: Yes. I guess issue 

16 number 19 was the concern about the ability to 

17 monitor for shallow dose. And I guess, given 

18 the fact that this facility has already 

19 received an SEC, the issue of skin cancer has 

20 to be looked at a little more carefully. 

21 And in the original TBD, we coded 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 my writeup that there was a time when the 

2 dosimeter had an 80 milligram per centimeter 

3 square absorber that separated the open window 

4 from exposure to non-penetrating radiation, 

5 principally betas. And the statement says that 

6 the radiation was routinely treated as a 1.7 

7 MEB beta particle from uranium which are about 

8 40 percent absorbed in 80 milligram per 

9 centimeter square, the determination of beta 

10 dose was not specific to uranium 238. 

11 And that's not an unreasonable 

12 assessment for trying to correct or compensate 

13 for the 80 milligrams. However, the 

14 protactinium 234 is not the only beta that is 

15 potentially going to give rise to a skin dose. 

16 Obviously, you have several other betas that 

17 are of lesser energy, and I cited those 

18 inclusive of technetium and U-238 and 235 that 

19 have potential exposure value to the shallow 

20 dose, which would not obviously register on an 

21 open window that is covered by an 80 milligram 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 centimeter square absorber thickness. So 

2 that was the issue in issue number 19. 

3 MR. NELSON: When we read the 

4 issue, our understanding of it was -- let's 

5 see -- is that you said a film badge appears 

6 to have been calibrated with a uranium slab 

7 without the absorber? 

8 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 

9 MR. NELSON: And we have reviewed 

10 documents, and we cited the reference IDs 

11 where they specifically say that the absorber 

12 was in place when they calibrated the film 

13 badges. So that would be contrary to the 

14 allegation that it was not in place. 

15 DR. BEHLING: How do you 

16 accommodate the lower energy data that, 

17 obviously, now, does not register on the badge 

18 that is being worn by an individual, if you 

19 really accommodate that by what you're saying 

20 is -- was the calibration method? 

21 MR. NELSON: Well, I --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: That's a different

2 issue, though, isn't it, Hans? I mean, unless 

3 the issue is not correctly captured in this 

4 matrix -- you know, what -- the issue that I 

5 read it says that the badge was not calibrated 

6 with an 80 milligram per square centimeter 

7 absorber. 

8 And the fact is it looks like 

9 they're citing references that say it was. Now 

10 you're talking about something different which 

11 is these other nuclides, I think. 

12 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 

13 DR. NETON: That could have been 

14 there, and I don't see that appearing anywhere 

15 here, so we obviously didn't address it. 

16 DR. BEHLING: Well, obviously, you 

17 have technetium-99, which would not be a part 

18 of it, or thorium, that may not be part of 

19 that uranium slab. 

20 DR. NETON: Well, right, and I 

21 don't' see that appearing anywhere in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 findings. So I guess --

2 MR. FITZGERALD: This is a one line 

3 summary of three pages in the Site Profile 

4 reviews, it wasn't meant to replace it. 

5 DR. NETON: Well, but the one line 

6 summary doesn't even indicate about other 

7 nuclides. That's what I'm saying. 

8 DR. BEHLING: No, no it doesn't, 

9 and, again, this is one of the weakness if you 

10 have a matrix that tried to capture sometimes 

11 things that are elaborate in write up over a 

12 period of several pages, and it's difficult to 

13 capture all of the things that are potentially 

14 relevant to the finding -- and left out. 

15 DR. NETON: That's fine, but I 

16 guess we would deal with the first, the one 

17 that appears here, and then we could talk 

18 about -- maybe think through the other issue 

19 of the other radionuclides. But if it is true 

20 that they were calibrated using the 80 

21 milligram per square centimeter absorber, I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 issue at least seems to be 

2 resolved, in my opinion. 

3 But if we could talk about the 

4 other nuclides, I guess just thinking on the 

5 fly, these are typically minor contaminants in 

6 the source stream. I don't know off the top of 

7 my head to what extent they would contribute 

8 to the shallow dose any more than you would 

9 from the beta coming off of a uranium source 

10 term, which is by far and away the largest 

11 potential source term, so.

12 MR. NELSON: They also place the --

13 directly on the uranium slab, and they use 

14 calibration factors to equate what the --

15 DR. NETON: Well, then, that's 

16 fine. I think no one would be arguing now the 

17 fact that the uranium was not appropriately 

18 calibrated, but what about the, essentially 

19 the transuranic and other contaminants in the 

20 process stream that existed? And my gut 

21 reaction, just thinking about it, it would be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 pretty small and minor but I can't -- I 

2 couldn't hold any quantitative evidence, you 

3 know, just sitting here, so. 

4 MR. FIX: This is Jack Fix. 

5 DR. NETON: Yes.

6 MR. FIX: Can I make a comment? 

7 DR. NETON: Sure. 

8 MR. FIX: I --

9 MR. KATZ: Jack? We lost you. 

10 DR. NETON: Hello, Jack? 

11 MR. CALHOUN: Boy, that was going 

12 to be a good comment. 

13 MR. KATZ: Jack? Did you cut 

14 yourself off? 

15 MR. FIX: I'm here now. I'm sorry. 

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

17 MR. FIX: Basically, the site had 

18 the same concern that Hans is expressing, and 

19 so they did, particularly Paducah where they -

20 - a parallel study, field study, with the old 

21 and the new badges, 1960, that has been 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 introduced with those 80 milligrams per 

2 centimeter squared filtration. And at the end 

3 of the -- at the end of that period, and 

4 that's in SRDB reference 30645, where they do 

5 -- evaluation of the new combination 

6 identification radiation emergency monitoring 

7 badge. 

8 This is the badge that was 

9 introduced at Paducah, Portsmouth, X-10, K-25, 

10 et cetera. And --

11 MR. KATZ: Jack? We just lost you 

12 again. 

13 MR. FIX: -- so it is a concern 

14 that --

15 MR. KATZ: Jack --

16 MR. FIX: -- was shared, that was -

17 - 

18 MR. KATZ: Jack, Jack, Jack, Jack -

19 - Jack, this is Ted. We lost, whatever you 

20 said for the last thirty seconds, maybe, we 

21 couldn't hear it. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FIX: Okay, Ted. I'm sorry. Can 

2 you hear me now? 

3 MR. KATZ: Yes, we can hear you 

4 now. You just might want to run, run back over 

5 --

6 MR. NELSON: Yes, he start -- start 

7 with the study that was done in 1960. That's 

8 where we lost you. 

9 MR. FIX: Okay. Well, the SRDB 

10 references 30645, and I just -- the site 

11 shares the -- shared the concern -- Paducah, 

12 in particular, shared the concern that was 

13 raised by Hans, and they ran a several month 

14 field comparison between the old and the new 

15 dosimeter and concluded that it was 

16 appropriate for use, that they -- and they 

17 went ahead and implemented this new dosimeter 

18 based on this field study. 

19 MEMBER BEACH: What was that 

20 reference number? 

21 MR. FIX: That's 1960. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: 30645. 

2 MR. FIX: Okay.

3 DR. NETON: So, Jack, what you're 

4 saying is that the old badge did miss the low 

5 energy betas from these other sources, or did 

6 not? 

7 MR. FIX: I would say that it's 

8 consistent with what you said before, that it 

9 probably missed some but they were not 

10 significant contributors to dose. So they 

11 would conclude that it was acceptable for them 

12 to introduce this new dosimeter in 1960, which 

13 is the same dosimeter used at X-10, 

14 Portsmouth, K -- Y-12, et cetera. 

15 DR. NETON: Okay. Well, since we 

16 didn't address that in here, maybe we should 

17 write that up as a response and get it on the 

18 -- in the matrix as a -- for the record.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

20 MR. NELSON: Also, we have OTIB-46, 

21 which also deals with this for Y-12, so this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 issue's been brought up before, and there's 

2 discussion in OTIB-46 about it. 

3 DR. NETON: Okay. But since, maybe, 

4 I don't know who adds it to the matrix. Maybe 

5 SC&A can go back and add that --

6 MR. FITZGERALD: I'll go back and 

7 add it. That was my omission. That's the 

8 second half of this issue, actually. I just 

9 missed it --

10 DR. NETON: Okay. And then we'll 

11 provide a response to it. Sounds like we've 

12 got good technical discussion to provide for 

13 that. 

14 MEMBER BEACH: Well, how much does 

15 OTIB-19.6 play in this? 

16 DR. NETON: 19.6 --

17 MR. NELSON: That's the external?

18 MEMBER BEACH: -- external. 

19 MR. NELSON: Well, that TIB, 

20 there's table in there, and let me -- let me 

21 go to that particular page because it -- it's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 an error which we said we needed to fix it. 

2 Let's see. 

3 MEMBER BEACH: I know I found it, 

4 it was listed in SC&A's review, but I don't 

5 know if it was current --

6 MR. NELSON: It was talking about 

7 the type of dosimetry we used and what years 

8 the film badges, and it said four element film 

9 badges up to 1960, and they were actually two 

10 element until 1960, and then in 1960, I 

11 believe it was, was when they added the 

12 security credential, like Hans was mentioning.

13 He gave it a total thickness of 80 

14 milligrams, square centimeter. So one of the -

15 - part of the response that we had is that we 

16 would fix table 6.1, where it said four 

17 element to say that it was two element through 

18 7 of 1960. Then, so that was part of our 

19 response is that we did reference incorrectly 

20 that it was a four element prior to 1960. That 

21 was just a side note. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 BEACH: Okay. 

2 MR. NELSON: And that study, what 

3 Jack was talking about, that was a five month 

4 study performed on site. And their conclusion, 

5 it says that it was recommended that Paducah 

6 utilize a new combination badge for official 

7 dose determinations effective January 1, 1961. 

8 And the intention of the study was to evaluate 

9 the combination badge under "in service 

10 conditions." 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, well, in 

12 sum, then, we will -- or I will add the second 

13 piece to this particular issue on the SC&A 

14 column, and accordingly, I guess, you all will 

15 provide that background as a response to that.

16 MR. NELSON: We have -- I have it 

17 all in my notes, but we didn't put it in a 

18 response based on the --

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I mean, that 

20 was an artifact of my truncating that a little 

21 bit. Sorry, Hans. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BEHLING: Not a problem. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Is that -- does 

3 that sound like a satisfactory path? 

4 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I mean, if Jack 

5 Fix has already mentioned that the additional 

6 or incremental dose associated with 

7 radionuclides that are not part of the uranium 

8 slab contribute a very minor level of dose, 

9 then I think that's the answer. 

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, then, we have 

11 this action item, but it sounds like there's 

12 no uncertainty about the response --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: It sounds like 

14 it's in the -- certainly a reasonable 

15 response. 

16 MR. KATZ: Okay.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Jack. 

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, thank you. Up to 

19 20. 

20 DR. BEHLING: The 20, I think, was 

21 probably resolved. I think it's been discussed 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 earlier when we discussed TBD 2 of Paducah, 

2 and that relates to what do those tables 

3 really represent. And one of the things that I 

4 did in reviewing some of the data that reflect 

5 that table, that is, I came to the conclusion, 

6 I mentioned under, I guess, finding number 17 

7 that was internal that there appears to be 

8 evidence of cohort monitoring. 

9 And I showed, obviously, a 

10 document that says for any given wear period 

11 the number of people that were monitored were 

12 a small fraction of those that are identified 

13 in table 6.6 as having been monitored for any 

14 given year. According to this in the first 

15 year, 1953, table 6.5 identifies 223 people, 

16 different people, were monitored. 

17 But when you go through some of 

18 the specifics that I include in my write up, 

19 you find that in any given wear period, there 

20 were as few as 32 badges from -- in the 

21 January time frame of 1953. And that to me 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 suggests that there were basically monitoring 

2 different people for each wear period, and 

3 that would suggest that perhaps, again, there 

4 were 22 cover all bases, all people who are 

5 potentially exposed to radiation and get some 

6 kind of an assessment list of what the 

7 exposures is.

8 An this conflicts with the 

9 assumption that only the maximally exposed 

10 individuals would have been monitored. And I 

11 really come to that conclusion in my writeup 

12 when I identified in table 3 the quantum jump 

13 between 1960 and `61 in numbers of people 

14 totally monitored. 

15 In 1960, there were a total of 527 

16 people monitored. In 1961, that number 

17 increased more than threefold to 1689 people. 

18 Now if in 1960 when only 527 people were 

19 monitored and then you look at the dose 

20 distribution, and I have -- I supplied a table 

21 with people who fell in that various 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 categories of 0 to 1 rem for the year, 1 to 2 

2 rem, 2 to 3 rem. 

3 The incremental numbers of people 

4 that were added to the 527 monitored in 1960 

5 to the 1689, in other words, more than 1100 

6 people were added. If in fact in 1960 we had 

7 monitored only the most exposed individual, 

8 then the additional people that you add to the 

9 1100 and some odd new people monitored in 1961 

10 would surely have been those involved in the 

11 lowest exposure category and that -- to be the 

12 case. 

13 So my conclusion, just looking at 

14 those numbers, which suggest that cohort 

15 badging was in fact the approach used earlier 

16 on, at least early years of the Paducah, and 

17 when you do that you have to be mindful that 

18 when you have an individual for whom there is 

19 no monitoring data available, you cannot 

20 conclude that he was probably among the lesser 

21 exposed individuals where the geometric mean 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 necessarily satisfy your assignment of 

2 the dose that should have been a dose had he 

3 been monitored, where perhaps maybe in certain 

4 categories of workers the higher dose for a 

5 coworker model would apply. Now, I, I believe 

6 that that was to large extent addressed in 

7 OTIB-0031. 

8 DR. NETON: Okay. 

9 DR. BEHLING: I can continue 

10 because I did review OTIB-31, and I compared 

11 the dose for, by the year, -- for 1953 to 1960 

12 and there was a significant increase in the 

13 assigned doses that are identified in OTIB-31. 

14 For instance, in the case of 1953, the 

15 original TBD had identified the dose of 139 

16 millirem and that increased to 1.128 rem. So 

17 there was nearly a ninefold or more 

18 difference. And I can only conclude that 

19 perhaps my concerns were addressed in this 

20 rewrite of OTIB-31. 

21 MR. NELSON: I think you're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 correct. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Was OTIB-31 

3 rewritten? 

4 MR. NELSON: No, it was -- let me 

5 look --

6 MEMBER BEACH: They just added a 

7 tab, didn't they? 

8 MR. NELSON: Yes, it was added --

9 well, let's see. It was originally written on 

10 5/19/05, then there was a revision in 8/05 

11 then a change 11/7/06. Which included 

12 construction workers. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: For the issue that 

14 Hans was talking about --

15 MR. NELSON: I remember 

16 specifically, the numbers going up. I think 

17 Hans is correct. It was probably responsive to 

18 the findings. 

19 DR. BEHLING: Yes, as I said, if 

20 you have the original writeup, which I include 

21 in my review of OTIB-31, there is a dramatic 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 increase in assigned dose by year for the 

2 years `53 through `60. As I said, there was a 

3 ninefold increase in dose for `53 and in 1960 

4 there was still more than a threefold increase 

5 in the assigned dose. 

6 MEMBER BEACH: But I found that 

7 chart in 19.6, not in 31. So. It's a little 

8 confusing. 

9 MR. NELSON: Well, the one in 19.6 

10 was all the dose for individuals that didn't 

11 include missed dose. That was part of what was 

12 added was missed dose because the frequency of 

13 the monitoring was probably much higher back 

14 then. 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: But to sum it up, 

16 Hans, with this latest review, you feel more 

17 comfortable with the version of 31? 

18 DR. BEHLING: Well, it certainly 

19 raises the, the assigned dose for people who 

20 were perhaps not monitored and for whom 

21 coworker monitoring data is applied to their 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dose. I'm not sure it addresses everything, 

2 but it certainly -- in raising the dose to 

3 unmonitored workers. 

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Let me turn it 

5 around. Is there any remaining issues that we 

6 should -- we should press? I don't want to 

7 keep, keep at this. 

8 DR. BEHLING: Well, I get, if there 

9 was a -- if they want it to be very claimant 

10 favorable you might still want to look at the 

11 fact that cohort badging may have existed for 

12 those years, and perhaps based on the 

13 different categories of workers and their 

14 distribution of dose among the coworkers, you 

15 might for a worker who fell into the higher 

16 category of exposures, you may want to assign 

17 the dose that is perhaps more than the 

18 geometric mean and assign --

19 DR. NETON: Yes, I was going to 

20 say, we typically do that. I don't know 

21 exactly where that's written, but, you know, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we do examine job category and make allowances 

2 --

3 MR. NELSON: There's a TIB for 

4 that. I can't think of which one it is --

5 DR. NETON: We can find it, we can 

6 locate where that's documented and provide 

7 that. 

8 MR. CALHOUN: Somehow that's 

9 referenced in TIB-52. But --

10 DR. NETON: Okay. Let me --

11 MR. CALHOUN: Maybe something else. 

12 It's a reference to 52, I believe. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Just taking that 

14 last question and the response to that last 

15 question could -- probably would be sufficient

16 on this one. 

17 DR. NETON: Okay. 

18 MEMBER BEACH: So the action is 

19 just a --

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Just to find --

21 MEMBER BEACH: -- where it is --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: -- find a 

2 reference and just, you know, I think the 

3 question that Hans is raising may be treated 

4 in one of these other OTIBs. 

5 DR. NETON: Where we made a 

6 conscious effort to look at the job title and 

7 not just blindly apply the 50th percentile. 

8 We've done that in many instances. I -- we 

9 have to figure out where that's documented. 

10 MEMBER BEACH: And this just comes 

11 back to new folks, you know where it's at, 

12 Grady, but if I was just coming in and new to 

13 the program would I know where to find all 

14 that? 

15 DR. NETON: I think that's Grady --

16 MEMBER BEACH: But that's what's in 

17 the back of my mind is this is where you're 

18 confusing just trying to find it all. I can --

19 a new dose reconstructor --

20 DR. NETON: I wasn't trying to be -

21 - 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 BEACH: No, I didn't think 

2 that, thank you, but it does strike --

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: We're just 

4 trying to give Grady job security here. 

5 DR. NETON: We'll document -- 

6 MR. CALHOUN: Thanks. 

7 DR. BEHLING: Are we ready to go to 

8 21? 

9 MR. NELSON: No, we're not ready to 

10 go. Back it up. OTIB-31 references the correct 

11 use of coworker which is OTIB-20. 

12 DR. NETON: Okay. 

13 MR. NELSON: Use of coworker 

14 dosimetry for external dose assessment. 

15 DR. NETON: Okay. 

16 MR. NELSON: So it's right there on 

17 the purpose, third paragraph down. 

18 MR. CALHOUN: So it's in the actual 

19 coworker TIB? 

20 MR. NELSON: Yes, it's in OTIB-20. 

21 MR. CALHOUN: Cool. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. NELSON: So we don't owe you 

2 anything now. 

3 MR. KATZ: Okay, it's closed. 21? 

4 DR. BEHLING: 21, that's kind of a 

5 head scratcher because when I wrote mine -- my 

6 review up, I didn't really see a firm problem

7 because I sort of looked at the study by 

8 Meiners a 1999 study, and concluded that the 

9 one to five neutron photon ratio was probably 

10 correct. 

11 The only potential issue here is 

12 the one of obviously assigning the neutron 

13 photon ratio for people whose exposure was not 

14 in documented form, meaning, once again, we go 

15 back to issue 20, where we have an issue of 

16 what do we do with people who were not 

17 necessarily monitored. 

18 And I think we sort of have to go 

19 back again to say if -- once we clarify the 

20 issue of the unmonitored photon dose for 

21 people under issue 20, then I think the issue 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 assigning a neutron -- potential neutron 

2 exposure would perhaps be then appropriate. 

3 And I agree with the one to five ratio. So 

4 it's related to issue 20, to some extent. 

5 MR. FITZGERALD: So the response to 

6 20 would take care of this one, too? 

7 DR. BEHLING: Yes, it would. 

8 Because what I conclude in my concluding 

9 statement when I reviewed this is that I 

10 agreed with the one to five neutron photon 

11 ratio, but I also said, however, a potential 

12 difficulty may arise for deriving unmonitored 

13 neutron doses for workers prior to 61 who were 

14 unmonitored for photons as well. 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: So the two are 

16 actually related findings --

17 DR. BEHLING: Yes, they are. 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Okay. Those 

19 are the primary issues that we had in the 

20 matrix. The ones that we have deemed secondary 

21 are listed on page 11 of the matrix that was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 provided back in June. And I would propose we 

2 go through those. I think those are kind of 

3 self explanatory, self evident, and, you know, 

4 typical of a Site Profile review where we'd 

5 present issues. 

6 But the Work Group may want to, 

7 you know, maybe after lunch, I don't know what 

8 you want to do, but whether you want to take 

9 these up or not, or just leave them stand as 

10 they are. Again, it was our judgment that 

11 these were, you know, the findings of 

12 specific, and we might raise a question on an 

13 equation or clarification, whatever, and I'd 

14 deem those as more secondary. 

15 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, unless 

16 we've got a --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: You may not agree. 

18 And there's about -- there's 19 of them back 

19 here on the list of secondary issues for 

20 Paducah. 

21 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Why don't we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 try to see if we can get through those, and so 

2 we don't have to go over these again later? 

3 DR. NETON: There's what, 19 of 

4 them? 

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

6 MEMBER BEACH: What about quickly 

7 after lunch going through the other matrix 

8 items also, or are we just totally not ready 

9 to look at any of those? 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: So we don't have a 

11 response for the other --

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: -- sites, just 

14 Paducah. 

15 MEMBER BEACH: Well, there seems to 

16 be one response, I noticed, for --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: No, those are --

18 those are situations where we have annotated 

19 that matrix and said that we found some 

20 responsiveness. That's not a NIOSH response, 

21 per se. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 BEACH: Right. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. So there's no 

3 NIOSH response for Portsmouth and K-25. So 

4 it's up to the Work Group. We can, after 

5 lunch, if you want to just go through the 

6 secondary issues, just for clarification sake 

7 --

8 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

9 MR. FITZGERALD: -- and they were 

10 in the Site Profile. We didn't think it has 

11 much influence in -- but you may want to ask 

12 some questions while we have everybody here. 

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Everybody's 

14 agreeable? 

15 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Unless you 

17 guys want to go to the beach or something. 

18 Well? 

19 MR. KATZ: Okay, so --

20 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Why don't we 

21 break for lunch? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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: You want to break for 

2 lunch? 

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. It's 12 --

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well, wait --

6 do you have to leave now? 

7 DR. NETON: I'm going to leave 

8 after a while. 

9 MEMBER BEACH: After a while. 

10 DR. NETON: I have an appointment. 

11 I have to leave around 1, but I -- that'd be 

12 great; that's fine. I mean, Grady's sitting 

13 here representing -- me. 

14 MR. KATZ: Okay. So we'll break 

15 until one? 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: I might add, some 

17 of these issues, like the site map, and, you 

18 know --

19 DR. NETON: They'll go fast. 

20 MR. FITZGERALD: They're going to 

21 go fast. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: So, again. 

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Since we're 

4 already here all together, just seems, makes 

5 more sense to just go ahead and do it now. 

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's fine. That's 

7 fine. And the other thing, I don't know if we 

8 need you to discuss, so, Portsmouth and K-25 

9 responses, do we have a sense of when those 

10 will be --

11 MR. NELSON: We have the Portsmouth 

12 ones pretty much done. 

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

14 MR. NELSON: I need to go through a 

15 management review of those, and whenever you 

16 want to set up a meeting here in the future, 

17 we'll be ready for those. Then K-25 will be 

18 done in late March. 

19 MR. KATZ: Late March. Okay. Well, 

20 does it make more sense to just combine them 

21 and wait until late March --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 SCHOFIELD: I think so. 

2 MR. KATZ: -- and knock off those 

3 two -- or try to. Okay. 

4 MEMBER BEACH: And by that time, 

5 we'll have the answers back on these, as well, 

6 I'm sure. Yes. 

7 MR. KATZ: All right, so we'll 

8 break for lunch and reconvene about 1 o'clock. 

9 It's a little bit past noon right now. Thank 

10 you, everyone. 

11 (Whereupon, the above entitled 

12 matter went off the record at 12:03 p.m. and 

13 resumed at 1:05 p.m.)

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

2 1:05 p.m.

3 MR. KATZ: Good afternoon. This is 

4 Ted Katz. We're reconvening the GDP Work Group 

5 after lunch break. Let me just check and see -

6 - Andy, are you with us? Okay, no Dr. Anderson 

7 at this time, but we can go forward. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, this is Joe 

9 Fitzgerald. As we said before the break, we 

10 were going to move from the primary issues, 

11 which we covered this morning, to the 

12 secondary issues. Again, the secondary issues 

13 were ones that we felt probably dealt more 

14 with technical adequacy and completeness, 

15 maybe less influential on dose reconstruction 

16 but still pertinent. 

17 So there's 19 secondary issues, 

18 and starting with the site TBD, one of the 

19 questions we had was there didn't seem to be

20 much mention in the site description of the 

21 regulatory status of the site that in fact, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you know, this whole thing, I think, was 

2 transferred in `93, January 1st, `93, to USEC, 

3 a commercial operation regulated by NRC. 

4 And just a little more background 

5 information on the -- on that development at 

6 that point in time. That was one thing that 

7 was -- just, basically as a informational 

8 thing mentioned from site description. 

9 MR. NELSON: Yes, our response to 

10 that was that really that wouldn't change the 

11 way we do dose reconstruction, but we can add 

12 some clarifying information in the site 

13 description once we update it, so it would be 

14 worth doing that. 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, just for 

16 background for the `92 end date. I think for 

17 those of us who are familiar with what was 

18 going on, that's why there's a `92 end date 

19 for the EEOICPA. 

20 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: The second issue -
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 - 

2 MR. KATZ: So that's closed? 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I mean, I 

4 think, again, the secondary issues are more or 

5 less pointing out, you know, enhancements and 

6 accuracy issues --

7 MR. KATZ: Right. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: You know. Second 

9 one deals with the site map, and I don't know 

10 --

11 MR. NELSON: It's pretty weak, I 

12 agree. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes --

14 MR. NELSON: And the ones in the 

15 PACE document --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: I've seen worse, I 

17 don't know --

18 MR. NELSON: Yes, the ones in the 

19 PACE document are much better --

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes --

21 MR. NELSON: -- and I think it's a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 good --

2 MR. FITZGERALD: I think it was a 

3 question of some of these secondary facilities 

4 weren't as easy to make out.

5 MR. NELSON: Right. 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: So, anyway. 

7 MR. NELSON: So I think we ought to 

8 put a nice map in there, maybe cover the whole 

9 page so you can actually see the facilities. 

10 MEMBER BEACH: Good idea. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: That would be 

12 sufficient from our standpoint. And the third 

13 one was just pointing out that the feed 

14 material was not just UO3, but I think in toto 

15 that was sort of addressed in the new TBD. 

16 I think that was a reference to 

17 the Site Profile, the site description TBD 

18 didn't get into some of the other feed sources 

19 as much. 

20 MR. NELSON: Right. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: I mean, I think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it's evident elsewhere in the TBD --

2 MR. NELSON: That's what our 

3 response was that we talk about the internal 

4 section of the Site Profile --

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

6 MR. NELSON: -- and that, you know, 

7 we will consider all types of material types, 

8 and --

9 MR. FITZGERALD: I think it sounds 

10 like a short paragraph referring to recycle 

11 and some of the other feed sources that were 

12 involved at -- in the campaigns at Paducah. 

13 Not a big deal, but just a, you know, an 

14 enhancement to the site description. 

15 MR. NELSON: So you think we might 

16 ought to add some stuff -- about recycle? 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think the 

18 information is in the overall set of TBDs, it 

19 just, doesn't come out in the site description 

20 as clearly as --

21 MR. NELSON: Okay, so I'll check 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 see how much refers to recycle. I know 

2 there's some U -- 308 and others. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I think UO3 

4 was the only --

5 MR. NELSON: UO3 is a feed --

6 MR. FITZGERALD: -- was the only 

7 one that was referenced --

8 MR. NELSON: Right. 

9 MR. FITZGERALD: -- in the site 

10 description. We talked about incidents and 

11 special activities. I think, again, this gets 

12 back to that table in the PACE report. I think 

13 the reviewer for that site description was 

14 looking for something analogous to that. My 

15 guess is that maybe some reference to the PACE 

16 report for the history of incidents, major 

17 incidents --

18 MR. NELSON: And that's in there 

19 now. We talked about it during that particular 

20 --

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. NELSON: -- issue --

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Same issue. 

3 MR. NELSON: -- about the PACE 

4 report --

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Same issue, so I 

6 don't think there's anything new there. The 

7 fifth one, I think with a little bit more 

8 explanation of how the 2001 Bechtel Jacobs 

9 report was going to be applied in terms of 

10 citing these additional concentrations. I 

11 think this may be addressed in one of the 

12 primary issues we discussed this morning. I 

13 mean, this is sort of very close to that. 

14 MR. NELSON: And when I said --

15 what I have for the response is the maximum 

16 concentrations for neptunium, plutonium, 

17 technetium are listed as reference data only, 

18 and they're not used in the calculation of 

19 internal or external doses during dose 

20 reconstruction. Those are accounted for in the 

21 internal and external dose sections of the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Site Profile. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think it 

3 was the classification category that was cited 

4 in the TBD versus how it was referenced in the 

5 BJC document, the Bechtel Jacobs document. 

6 That's the way I read --apparently the BJC 

7 document, the Bechtel Jacobs does not 

8 associate specific nuclides with neptunium 

9 plutonium. 

10 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: I think this is 

12 something you should go back and check. I 

13 mean, this --

14 MR. NELSON: All right, I'll make 

15 sure I understand that, then. Is there --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: It says pages 11, 

17 20 of TBD provide maximum concentrations for 

18 neptunium, plutonium technetium expected for 

19 activities at each of the buildings that were 

20 referenced, recycle --

21 MR. NELSON: Okay. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: -- these mass 

2 concentrations are associated with types of 

3 exposures, worker activities in those 

4 buildings. The TBD has misinterpreted the 

5 classification categories applying only to 

6 external radiation exposure potential. 

7 I think that's probably the more 

8 important statement that's made in there is 

9 that one. 

10 MR. NELSON: Where it says like --

11 radiological risk? 

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, SC&A knows 

13 that the use of these data for calculation of 

14 internal doses would not necessarily be 

15 consistent with methods used in the internal 

16 TBD. 

17 MR. NELSON: Okay. Our response to 

18 that was that this is only for reference only 

19 and the specifics are more so in the TBD --

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think the 

21 fact that the internal is the relevant one --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 site description is really just for 

2 background. But I think for consistency's 

3 sake, you may want to look at that. 

4 MR. NELSON: Where it says like, 

5 radiological risks? 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: This is comparing 

7 what's here with what's in the Berger 

8 document, but that's --

9 MEMBER BEACH: Just making it more 

10 clear? 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: -- that's 2000. 

12 Consistency. 

13 MEMBER BEACH: More consistent, 

14 okay. 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Again, this is the 

16 2004 version of the internal TBD, so take that 

17 with a grain of salt. I think the consistency 

18 issue is looking at Bechtel Jacobs 2001 and 

19 comparing it with 2007 version of the internal 

20 TBD. 

21 Issue six under occupational 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 medical TBD. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the TBD, 

2 this is the 2004 TBD on occ. med., failed to 

3 describe information upon which to establish 

4 beam quality for x-ray units used from `52 to 

5 `75. And it goes into a lot of very factual 

6 details. 

7 And the question is, you know, the 

8 documentation to support the technetium 

9 protocols used to apply the dose and whether 

10 that history that's laid out here is the same 

11 as the TBD. 

12 MR. NELSON: Okay, what I think we 

13 have on that is standards and regulations for 

14 required minimum filtration x-ray units has 

15 been around for a long time. The predecessor 

16 is NCRP-102. The predecessor to NCRP-102 was 

17 NCRP-33. 

18 Many of the sites performed only a 

19 PA projection, so it's not an unreasonable 

20 assumption if no evidence exists to the 

21 contrary, so based on a review of the x-ray 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 records provided by Paducah, x-ray exams are 

2 listed as PA chest or as PA x-ray. 

3 When we do the dose 

4 reconstructions, if it says PA chest then 

5 we'll assign a PA dose only. But if it's a 

6 chest x-ray, then we do both PA and lab doses.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: I think a lot of 

8 this goes away with referencing Kathren, 2005. 

9 You know, some of these issues are somewhat 

10 related --

11 MR. NELSON: Yes, because they --

12 MR. FITZGERALD: This speaks to the 

13 ORAU 2003 reference. That the information is 

14 derived from that. I think that the later 

15 reference is more relevant. 

16 I guess I would just sum this up 

17 and say there's just a lot of technical, you 

18 know, what ifs and isn't this more relevant. 

19 And I, again, I think this is provided for a 

20 factual accuracy check. You know, I don't 

21 think we necessarily have to go through each 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 these items and -- but I think they're all 

2 there for your use, to validate what's in the 

3 current TBD as you revise it. 

4 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

5 MR. FITZGERALD: I suspect the 2005 

6 reference probably will take care of most of 

7 that. I mean, the overall issue is that the 

8 technetium protocols bring into question some 

9 of the DCFs that are listed in the table on 

10 the old TBD. 

11 MR. NELSON: Okay. I think it went 

12 on quite a bit, though, about discussion of 

13 minimum filtration and --

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Yes, I think 

15 as a function of whether or not these 

16 techniques and protocols are the accurate 

17 ones, you could increase the uncertainty about 

18 the dose reconstruction that you would do. 

19 I think that just -- it's just 

20 laying out, you know, some questions about the 

21 techniques that are listed, and the frequency, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 I'm not disputing that. I think the 

2 inclusion of the Kathren information from that 

3 2005 document plus the -- you looked into 

4 photofluorography? 

5 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: And I think that's 

7 a pretty complete picture, based on what we 

8 discussed this morning. So I think this was 

9 more of a looking at the issue, more on the --

10 factual accuracy check, and I would go through 

11 this, and, if the Kathren 2005 plus the 

12 photofluorography resolves most of these 

13 issues, then, I don't -- you know --

14 MR. NELSON: I mean, there is an 

15 uncertainty assigned to the x-rays. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this just 

17 says the uncertainty would be increased if the 

18 frequency in the techniques weren't right on. 

19 The same thing with issue -- issue seven. That 

20 gets to the Kathren report as well. 

21 MR. NELSON: All right. And we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 talked about how we're actually assigning x2 rays in a claimant favorable manner if no 

3 documentation exists. Otherwise, as you 

4 mention, we adopted the discussion in Kathren 

5 on the x-rays for asbestos workers. 

6 So that's where we got into the 

7 1985 date of where we add frequency of x-rays 

8 every two years after 1985 and every three 

9 years before that time. 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, the other 

11 question, you know, certainly, back in the 

12 Site Profile, it would -- the claim was made 

13 that it would be more claimant favorable to 

14 instruct dose reconstructors to use an annual 

15 dose of 3 rem per year for the radiographs, 

16 chest radiographs. 

17 That was based -- and, again, that 

18 was actually based on the Kathren document, so 

19 --

20 MR. NELSON: I think that was a PFG 

21 --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

2 MR. NELSON: -- photofluorography 

3 which we have no evidence whatsoever, after 

4 reviewing 1200 claims --

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, this gets 

6 back to -- this gets back to PFG -- so you 

7 verified that? 

8 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. And that 

10 would close that one.

11 MEMBER BEACH: I thought we did --

12 MR. FITZGERALD: That was issue --

13 that was the other one. This is issue seven. 

14 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

15 MEMBER BEACH: That would close 

16 that here. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

18 MEMBER BEACH: Or back here. 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, it closes it 

20 here as well. 

21 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Yes. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: Okay, issue --

2 issue eight deals with other potential medical 

3 exposures being identified, and you've looked 

4 at the PFG. And, let's see -- portable x-ray 

5 units were not used. TBD fails to document 

6 that available x-ray units were not operated 

7 at greater than 80 to 90 kilovolts prior to 

8 `75. To the contrary table 3-3 of TBD 

9 indicates that the kilovolt after 1975 was set 

10 up at 100 kVp when operated -- when performing 

11 LAT chest exams.

12 MR. NELSON: Those are for later 

13 years. 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, after `75. 

15 MR. NELSON: What we have is a 

16 direct interview with the technologist that 

17 worked in there in 1974, and he had previous 

18 knowledge of what they had done, and he's 

19 worked there ever since. So we have a 

20 reference document where we have the actual 

21 interview that took place and the summary of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 results. And that's where all that 

2 information came --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: The 80 to 90 

4 versus --

5 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: -- the 100 after -

7 - 

8 MR. NELSON: Right. Those are 

9 direct -- directly out of that reference. 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Now that -- would 

11 the interview documentation been available --

12 MR. NELSON: Yes, I can give you 

13 the --

14 MR. FITZGERALD: During the Site 

15 Profile review? 

16 MR. NELSON: Yes, I can give you 

17 the reference ID number. I didn't write it 

18 down on here. It was --

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

20 MR. NELSON: -- I can get that to 

21 you, though. I did not write the reference ID 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 number. Let me see if I have it in one of 

2 these other responses. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Relative to the 

4 question of beyond x-ray units, isotopes and 

5 sealed sources, anything else that would have 

6 been applied for medical purposes? 

7 MR. NELSON: The one thing -- let 

8 me get back to that little section there, 

9 because -- in SRDB 11951, there's discussion 

10 of the portable -- if I say this right --

11 Baltospot x-ray machine was used for tests on 

12 equipment in the field, and it was not used on 

13 personnel. 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. That's -- so 

15 that wasn't a medical application. 

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Give me that 

17 number again? 

18 MR. NELSON: 11951. 

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. 

20 MR. FITZGERALD: And that's only 

21 field application, not medical. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. NELSON: Correct. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: And there weren't 

3 any other applications beyond the x-ray units?

4 MR. NELSON: We have no indication 

5 of portable units based on the interviews with 

6 the medical x-ray technician. And I think that 

7 number is 18610. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: 18 --

9 MR. NELSON: The reference ID I 

10 couldn't find a minute ago. 

11 MEMBER BEACH: 186 --

12 MR. NELSON: -- 10. 

13 MEMBER BEACH: -- 10. 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, that would 

15 respond then to this issue that, even though 

16 it's not explicit in the TBD at the time, your 

17 reviews -- indicates there weren't any other 

18 medical applications of sealed sources, x-ray 

19 units, and certainly no PFG units. 

20 MR. NELSON: Correct. I can -- and 

21 if you want, I can read the discussion from 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 interview, if you want me to --

2 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I think, 

3 really, the only intent here is that when, I 

4 guess you revise the Site Profile, that would 

5 be kind of useful background information to 

6 provide in the occ. med. section, just to kind 

7 of --

8 MR. NELSON: So add that reference 

9 in there if it's --

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, just cross 

11 the T that there weren't any other medical --

12 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: -- applications of 

14 sealed sources, x-ray units, all that, there 

15 weren't any PFGs -- actually, have done all 

16 the research already --

17 MR. NELSON: Right, just roll that 

18 into the TBD information we have. 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: So that would 

20 resolve the action at the table, but that 

21 would be something that would be put in the --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 next rendition.

2 Issue nine. Issue nine, and the 

3 reason I list it as a secondary, I think this 

4 was just a commentary on the fact that there 

5 were other contributors to uncertainties. 

6 Not sure I want to go through all 

7 of this, but a beam, a varying beam quality. 

8 How equipment was used -- use of screens, 

9 grids, or Bucky systems. I mean, there's sort 

10 of a lot of inside baseball, you know, x-ray 

11 machine applications on this thing here. 

12 And I don't think there's a real 

13 firm -- there's a real concern over how it's 

14 treated. I think there was some comment that 

15 these were additional uncertainties that would 

16 be -- that would play into it. 

17 MR. NELSON: There was some mention 

18 about the DCS or -- derived from ICRP-1982, 

19 and that they were not comparable in terms of 

20 beam quality, which varies from unit to unit, 

21 and the responses in ICRP-34 DCFs are in fact 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 chosen based on beam quality. 

2 And also there is -- if you go 

3 into ORAU procedure 0061, there is guidance 

4 provided for uncollimated x-rays, if 

5 necessary. 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: That's ORAU --

7 MR. NELSON: PROC-0061. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: 61 --

9 MR. CALHOUN: PROC-61. 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: PROC-61.

11 MR. NELSON: That's the Kathren 

12 document, correct? 

13 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know, I --

14 that might be in that document. I don't know 

15 that. I don't know what the Kathren document 

16 is. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: How about retake 

18 rates? 

19 MR. NELSON: Okay. Okay, it's --

20 here's what I have here. It's doubtful that 

21 retakes were significant. Even sites like BNL 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we did research in all aspects of medical 

2 radiation exposures and recorded estimates of 

3 x-ray dose and medical records, did not do a 

4 retake analysis. 

5 Also we reviewed many films at DOE 

6 sites over the various times. It's pretty 

7 clear that sub-optimal films were not 

8 repeated. These went through for reading as 

9 is. So I don't feel there's a big potential 

10 for retakes. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: So there's a 

12 benchmark at a -- comparable facilities or 

13 plants that could be used as -- for practice 

14 at the time --

15 MR. NELSON: Where our -- what we 

16 found so far is that with the other DOE sites, 

17 that for the most part they weren't repeated. 

18 MEMBER BEACH: What kind of 

19 percentage do you think that --

20 MR. NELSON: I don't have a number. 

21 I don't have a number for that. What I should 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 done is got our x-ray expert on the phone 

2 with this. She could have helped you some on 

3 it. 

4 MR. CALHOUN: Elyse? 

5 MR. NELSON: Elyse, yes. 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: I think the 

7 question, at least these questions, for 

8 example, there's another one, you know, what 

9 correction factor should one apply prior to 

10 `75. Correction factor is plus 30 percent, and 

11 the SC&A reviewer at the time was claiming a 

12 factor of two. 

13 I guess on this one I would just 

14 say leave it open but give it to your x-ray --

15 I mean, I'm kind of swimming in shallow 

16 waters, too, because some of these are pretty 

17 technical to how uncertainties are treated in 

18 a medical x-ray applications. I, again, you 

19 see this is sort of a secondary issue, these 

20 are all points that could be considered in a 

21 update of that TBD. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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, you know, the -- being that 

2 there are uncertainties, the question is just 

3 weighing them as whether they're significant 

4 uncertainties or not. If they're not 

5 significant, why would you include them?

6 MR. NELSON: Well, the feeling is 

7 that they're insignificant and --

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

9 MR. NELSON: -- I think we do an 

10 adequate job of accounting for them. So I 

11 mean, if we want to have some detailed 

12 discussions, I guess we could do that on the 

13 next opportunity, and we could get our x-ray 

14 expert here, and she could probably go on for 

15 hours --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: I would just keep 

17 it -- I would just keep it significance. I 

18 mean, I don't think any research is warranted, 

19 but just, you know, what's the relative 

20 significance of any of these factors in terms 

21 of a dose reconstruction. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 if relatively speaking, 

2 they're not significant, then I wouldn't spend 

3 much time with it. I think this factor, two 

4 versus 30 percent, sounds at least, off the 

5 top, significant enough that you'd want to 

6 have a -- have her take a look at that. 

7 Some of these others, I think, are 

8 more incidental. So I would just leave this 

9 sort of pending maybe a review by the medical 

10 x-ray resource at NIOSH and, you know, a 

11 judgment on significance of some of these 

12 factors and if any of them are significant 

13 enough to be considered. 

14 MR. NELSON: I think what we'll do 

15 is we'll, on the next conference -- on the 

16 next meeting, we'll have her come in and give 

17 us a nice -- so everybody's -- understands a 

18 little better because I know I didn't do a 

19 great job on that. I'm certainly not an x-ray 

20 expert. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, neither am 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. But I think that's probably the question 

2 that matters most for these.

3 Occupational and environmental 

4 TBD. This is moving from the occ. med. to the 

5 environmental TBD. And item -- item ten. The 

6 reason I put this on the secondary list is I 

7 don't think that we have done this on other 

8 Site Profiles. I haven't seen that in other 

9 Site Profiles where there's sort of a 

10 validation, you know, that's comparing what 

11 one measures versus what's predicted by some 

12 of the analyses. 

13 I included it for completeness 

14 sake, but I'm not quite sure I understand this 

15 one. And --

16 MR. NELSON: My feeling was there's 

17 no comparison because they're two different 

18 purposes for the data and --

19 MR. FITZGERALD: That's --

20 MR. NELSON: -- their application 

21 is job dependent. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: The issue is it 

2 reads right from the Site Profile review. All 

3 Paducah personnel wore film badges. That's 

4 what's stated in the TBD. And this document is 

5 supposed to provide information for estimating 

6 environmental doses when monitoring was not 

7 performed or coworker data could not be used, 

8 but there were no comparisons of any doses 

9 based on personnel badge data, with estimates 

10 based on the ambient environmental exposures. 

11 And I -- like I said, again, I --

12 it's a bit of a non sequitur because I don't 

13 think that has been compared, for good reason, 

14 in the past. So, again, I'd list it, but I 

15 guess, speaking for SC&A, would not hold you 

16 to that one. 

17 I didn't want to leave it out, 

18 either, but that one's a little hard for me to 

19 get my hands around. So I would close that, 

20 but more from the standpoint that I don't 

21 think it's a significant finding. Sort of a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 peremptory strike on that one. 

2 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Item 11. 

4 Preoperational measurements cannot have 

5 detected ambient levels. This is sort of a 

6 similar issue. And this comes from the TBD. 

7 The TBD states that none of the ten 

8 preoperational samples analyzed in `52 showed 

9 any measurable concentration of uranium. 

10 But, you know, how could it in 

11 `52? I guess that's kind of the conundrum 

12 there.

13 MR. NELSON: What we have is the 

14 Site Profile states what is known about the 

15 preoperational measurements, and it's not 

16 sufficient to conclude there were no pre17 existing airborne radioactivity in the area, 

18 nor was this data used in the determination of 

19 the environmental dose. It was simply listed 

20 in the Site Profile as a historical document. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, so this is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just a historical reference? 

2 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: So this would not 

4 be referenced in a dose reconstruction? 

5 MR. NELSON: No, when we do the 

6 environmental data, or when we assign an 

7 environmental dose, it's based on the data we 

8 collected in the -- using the worst case 

9 assumption from uranium concentrations, and we 

10 assign what the contaminants were associated 

11 with, be they plutonium, technetium --

12 MR. FITZGERALD: I mean, the other 

13 purpose for this would be just if you had some 

14 reading, to subtract it out as being a 

15 preoperational baseline. I mean, that's the 

16 only thing I could think of. I don't want to 

17 belabor it. 

18 I think that's the only thing you 

19 would do -- typically, in an operation, you'd 

20 have a preoperational baseline of your 

21 naturally occurring contamination levels and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 make sure those were subtracted out, but in 

2 this case -- let's see -- total uranium, about 

3 4.6. Not really familiar -- what is that, a? 

4 Small letter a, curie. It's awful small. 

5 Okay, what I would suggest then, 

6 if this is a historical reference, it doesn't 

7 -- it doesn't play into a dose estimation 

8 process, then I think it's a useful piece of 

9 information but it doesn't have to be 

10 addressed as a response. Is that reasonable, 

11 Phil? 

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Sounds 

13 reasonable. 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Item 12. This is 

15 the ambient air sampling collection network. 

16 MR. NELSON: Right. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: I think that the 

18 notion there is, you know, these were for 

19 compliance with NESHAPs and what have you but 

20 not intended for actually onsite monitoring 

21 because of the location of the fence line and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 that. 

2 MEMBER BEACH: Is there dates on 

3 those or anything? Is this a constant --

4 MR. NELSON: What are you referring 

5 to as far as dates? 

6 MEMBER BEACH: The -- for the 

7 sampling. Onsite -- the onsite monitoring 

8 stations. What was the operational time 

9 period? Do we know, or -- 

10 MR. NELSON: Of the onsite air 

11 samplers? 

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

13 MR. NELSON: I can't remember if 

14 those started in `59. I don't have the exact 

15 date in front of me. I believe it was 1959, 

16 going from my memory. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: But in terms of 

18 using the data from the fence line, compliance 

19 monitoring, essentially, the air samplers on 

20 the fence. How are those adapted to 

21 establishing --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. NELSON: There's an entire 

2 discussion in the environmental TBD, but 

3 basically they did use those perimeter air 

4 samples, and they talked about what the wind 

5 rose were and so forth. And they were used for 

6 estimating the release data and the maximum 

7 air concentrations. 

8 And what they actually chose was 

9 the higher values based on the releases that 

10 occurred from some of the campaigns when the 

11 exposure levels were higher and based on air 

12 monitoring trends. So they would look -- they 

13 looked at all that and chose the worst case 

14 scenario. 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Being in the worst 

16 case, the perimeters --

17 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: -- necessarily, 

19 wouldn't necessarily characterize, depending 

20 on the, you know, the way the onsite 

21 dispersion was. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. NELSON: Well, some of the 

2 discussion was, is based on the stack location 

3 and predominant wind direction, all that lined 

4 up actually pretty nicely with the perimeter 

5 air monitors. And they had pretty consistent 

6 winds in that area, and the layout of the 

7 buildings where they felt that --

8 MR. FITZGERALD: So you --

9 MR. NELSON: -- they were adequate.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: -- think your 

11 position would be that the perimeter monitors 

12 were representative based on your --

13 MR. NELSON: They can be used --

14 MR. FITZGERALD: They can be used, 

15 you looked at the data onsite. 

16 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: The data there 

18 was, emission data, and you're seeing that's 

19 representative. 

20 MR. NELSON: Correct. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: I think this gets 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to the representativeness of the perimeter 

2 monitors that were onsite, adjacent to the 

3 facilities themselves. 

4 MEMBER BEACH: Well, how important 

5 this last statement is, there's no map showing 

6 the locations of the air sampling stations. Is 

7 that just --

8 MR. NELSON: We --

9 MEMBER BEACH: Do you have that 

10 information? 

11 MR. NELSON: What we said on that, 

12 we can add a map during the next Site Profile 

13 revision to show the air monitoring locations.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: And maybe --

15 MR. NELSON: I know there's one 

16 there for the TLD monitoring locations. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, they seemed 

18 like, a brief discussion of what you just 

19 said, basically, which is the -- sort of 

20 answers the question why the perimeter 

21 monitors --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. NELSON: That's in the 

2 environmental TBD. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: That's -- that is 

4 sufficient. I don't have my --

5 MR. NELSON: So we will add a map 

6 to show the --

7 MR. FITZGERALD: All right. 

8 MR. NELSON: -- perimeter air 

9 monitors. 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, I would close 

11 that with the qualification that a map would 

12 be added. There's two basic questions that are 

13 listed under -- well, it's issue 13 here. It's 

14 issue 6 in the --

15 MR. NELSON: Yes, they're very 

16 similar. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: How would you 

18 respond to those? 

19 MR. NELSON: The first one, well, 

20 see, our primary response to number six, which 

21 is that big long list you were happy with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 earlier. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. Right. 

3 MR. NELSON: But, if you look at --

4 we got some references, 37840, those are 

5 reference IDs, and 37842. And these are TLD, 

6 near the cylinder yards for 82 and 84. Let's 

7 see -- I can go through the response for 

8 number six, but I don't --

9 MR. FITZGERALD: No, no. I think --

10 MR. NELSON: -- the exact question 

11 for 13, I'm not sure when I read the little 

12 paraphrase here, question exists regarding 

13 section 4.3.2, radiological conditions of the 

14 cylinder yard, I need to look at that. Because 

15 basically our response was see issue number 

16 six, where we went and did a --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, the first 

18 part of that, which is this question number 

19 one, actually, was in fact responded to in 

20 your answer to six. So, you know, that -- the 

21 question of dose rate measurements, 100 meters 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from the UF6 storage yards, how representative 

2 they are. 

3 MR. NELSON: Okay. You're saying 

4 relative to the distance from the cylinder 

5 yards themselves? 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Yes. 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: I know in later 

8 years, the area is pretty well controlled for 

9 access, so -- and really, since 1960, anybody 

10 that went into that area would have been 

11 monitored anyways, as far as, you know, if 

12 somebody did work, like on the fence line and 

13 those areas there, then it was -- that would 

14 be representative of those locations. 

15 What we do is we take the highest 

16 reading out of all those. We make it for 2600 

17 hours, and you come out with about 260 

18 millirem per year that's assigned to these 

19 individuals if they work in the cylinder yard. 

20 Which, incidentally, is more than you would 

21 assign to an individual that worked onsite and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 had zeros for the whole year. So that would be 

2 the same as what a missed dose would be. 

3 MEMBER BEACH: How many hour day is 

4 that based on? 

5 MR. NELSON: Well, that's, what, 

6 2600 hours? What is that --

7 MEMBER BEACH: Is that a year, or -

8 - 

9 MR. CALHOUN: Standard work year is 

10 2080, so. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Is this an 

12 unmonitored worker? 

13 MR. NELSON: Yes, an unmonitored 

14 worker --

15 MR. FITZGERALD: An unmonitored 

16 working in a cylinder yard --

17 MR. NELSON: If they were to happen 

18 to visit a cylinder yard or if they had 

19 something in their record about being in a 

20 cylinder yard, we're going to give them 240 

21 millirem a year. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 BEACH: If they are assigned 

2 a cylinder yard, and they --

3 MR. NELSON: Then they're going to 

4 have a TLD or a film badge. 

5 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Even guards, 

6 service -- those type of folks? 

7 MR. NELSON: Well, starting in 

8 1960, everybody was badged. 

9 MEMBER BEACH: Everybody, okay. I 

10 thought I read somewhere -- 

11 MR. NELSON: Susan, do you got an 

12 elaboration on that? Because you worked on 

13 this particular issue some, so if I'm missing 

14 some points you want to bring out, jump right 

15 in there. 

16 MS. WINSLOW: No, actually, you're 

17 covering things pretty well. You know, if we 

18 have somebody who worked in the cylinder yard, 

19 then we're going to give them coworker; we're 

20 not going to give them environmental. 

21 MR. NELSON: Yes. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. WINSLOW: But, you know, if 

2 they talked about working around, outside, 

3 that type of thing, that's when we're going to 

4 look at giving them possibly an environmental 

5 dose. As Chuck mentioned, the 260 millirem per 

6 year. 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Which is 

8 responsive to the first item, which is why you 

9 use 100 meters. More of an environmental 

10 ambient dose. 

11 MR. NELSON: Yes, I guess that's a 

12 good point.

13 MR. FITZGERALD: -- the coworker 

14 would be inside the fence. 

15 MR. NELSON: We did look at some 

16 more data. They used to do GM readings prior 

17 to, what was it, 1981. They would go around 

18 with a GM side window, and they would do 

19 exposure rates in a lot of different areas. 

20 And we looked at some of those 

21 records in this, I believe it was in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 1970s, wasn't it, Susan? And those ranges were 

2 about 14 to 49 millirem for 2000 hours. So we 

3 feel like 260 millirem is pretty claimant 

4 favorable. 

5 Then we also looked at several TLD 

6 readings which were --

7 MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sorry, what 

8 was the time period for that 260 millirem? Per 

9 day? 

10 MR. NELSON: 260 millirem per year.

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Per year. 

12 MR. NELSON: Calendar year. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Calendar year. 

14 This is for incidental? 

15 MR. NELSON: That's for an 

16 environmental worker who worked in the 

17 vicinity of cylinders. 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

19 MR. NELSON: Unmonitored worker, 

20 let's put it that way. So that's pretty 

21 claimant favorable. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: And I think the 

2 second part of this was sort of raising the 

3 question if this -- if there was a new policy 

4 for everyone being badged, who was -- who were 

5 these unmonitored workers in the first place?

6 I guess that was a --

7 MR. NELSON: I guess I didn't see 

8 that particular question. Let's see --

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Now, of course, 

10 the question, all workers, who were the 

11 workers that were referred to there? I'm not 

12 sure that included all the support staff. 

13 MR. NELSON: Are you -- you're 

14 going to have to direct me where in the 

15 procedure --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: 2B. 

17 MR. NELSON: 2B? 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: 2B, on page 40 of 

19 the Site Profile review itself. And this is 

20 listed as issue six in the -- on page 40. 

21 MR. NELSON: Okay. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: It has one and 

2 two. We were talking about one. But two talks 

3 about the workers themselves. It says that 

4 during recent years, this area has been posted 

5 as a radiological area which has reduced the 

6 number of unmonitored workers spending any 

7 significant time in the area to zero, which 

8 raises some questions. 

9 You know, what were the criteria 

10 for the designation of who would be monitored 

11 or unmonitored, and given the `62 policy that 

12 all workers were to wear dosimetry at all 

13 times, who were the unmonitored workers this 

14 policy was designed to protect? 

15 MR. NELSON: The only thing that 

16 comes to mind there would be someone that 

17 worked like at the perimeter of the fence, at 

18 the radiological boundary. That's the only 

19 thing I can think of on that. I didn't -- I 

20 don't really have a response prepared for that 

21 part of that question. But that's what comes 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to mind to me. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe it would be 

3 helpful if -- what's her name?

4 MR. NELSO Susan?

5 MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know if 

6 Susan would have more --

7 MS. WINSLOW: Yes? 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Were there 

9 unmonitored workers who would have been, you 

10 know, I guess given the environmental or the 

11 unmonitored worker dose for the cylinder yards 

12 that -- who were they, if in fact after `62, 

13 almost by definition they should have been 

14 badged if they were working at Paducah?

15 MS. WINSLOW: That's true. We 

16 actually approached this very conservatively 

17 in that anyone that we can maximize their 

18 environmental exposure regardless of whether

19 they were an admin person or a computer 

20 person, anybody that may have traveled through 

21 the site delivering paychecks, and that sort 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 thing, we assigned the maximum 260. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. So really 

3 this gets down to the most broadest -- the 

4 broadest definition of workers. 

5 MS. WINSLOW: Correct. 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Or 

7 employees.

8 MR. NELSON: I think though 

9 sometimes that it might -- it says nothing 

10 about working in a cylinder yard. Do you guys 

11 always give them 260? 

12 MS. WINSLOW: I'm sorry, say that 

13 again, Chuck. 

14 MR. NELSON: You guys don't always 

15 give them the maximum environmental dose for 

16 an admin worker if they didn't say anything 

17 about the cylinder yard, do you? 

18 MS. WINSLOW: Most of the time we 

19 do, unless we need to do a best estimate on 

20 the case. 

21 MR. NELSON: That's what I'm 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 referring to. 

2 MS. WINSLOW: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. 

3 Yes. If we have to do a best estimate, then we 

4 tweak the environmental down based on a more 

5 reasonable number, not including all the 

6 higher cylinder yard doses. 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: I would suggest 

8 that some of that might be just a little bit 

9 clarifying in that section. I think that was a 

10 source of some of the confusion on this. I 

11 mean, what you're saying makes a lot of sense, 

12 but I think -- and, again, this was going back 

13 to the original TBD --

14 MR. NELSON: Right, because I'm 

15 looking in the new one --

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

17 MS. WINSLOW: Right. And the other 

18 thing too is, we now have Procedure 60, which 

19 addresses onsite environmental doses, and it 

20 addresses how to maximize, how to best 

21 estimate environmental doses, and it does give 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 some site specific recommendations, as well. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, what's the 

3 date on that? 

4 MS. WINSLOW: That I don't have. 

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Is that 

6 referenced in the 2007 TBD? 

7 MS. WINSLOW: Let me check. 

8 MR. NELSON: Procedure 60? 

9 MR. FITZGERALD: That would help. 

10 MR. NELSON: I don't see it in 

11 here. 

12 MR. CALHOUN: 6/28/06 is the 

13 effective date of that one. PROC-60. 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Which would have 

15 been just before this review. This is well 

16 before the review. This is a few months before 

17 this review took place, so it's doubtful that 

18 had been reflected. So the next revision, you 

19 would probably cite PROC-060 but maybe provide 

20 some additional clarification on the 

21 cylinders. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. NELSON: We can add that PROC2 060 in there. I was going to try to quote some 

3 sections of this environmental TBD. I thought 

4 I was fairly clear exactly how to assign dose 

5 to those individuals. I guess the point taken 

6 here is that we'll put PROC-060 in there and 

7 whatever, clarify --

8 MR. FITZGERALD: -- would be 

9 warranted. Again, this is the 2004 version -- 

10 MR. NELSON: Right. You haven't 

11 evaluated the 2007. 

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, you know, I 

13 ran the matrix in the primaries --

14 MR. NELSON: Right. 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: -- and I didn't go 

16 line by line on the secondaries, but I think 

17 that would be the easy way to see, just make a 

18 judgment call on that. 

19 MR. NELSON: We'll take -- we'll 

20 look that over. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: So I think we're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 agreement in principal at the table, and 

2 just a matter of revisiting the thing at next 

3 revision. This one I think is perhaps 

4 addressed in the 2007. There's no discussion 

5 in the TBD of radionuclide specific 

6 concentrations, aerosol, water, environmental 

7 fate of uranium, radionuclide releases, 

8 burning of contaminant material at onsite 

9 pits. 

10 MR. NELSON: What are you on, 

11 number 14, then? 

12 MEMBER BEACH: Number 7. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Number 14 -- issue 

14 7 on page 40 of the Site Profile review. 

15 MR. NELSON: What we have here is a 

16 -- the source term at the site is known, and 

17 the ratios of recycled uranium components are 

18 provided in internal section of the Site 

19 Profile, which is also used in the assignment 

20 of environmental internal doses. 

21 And that has some discussion like 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 said before about a nearly constant wind at 

2 the site contributed to a very effective 

3 diffusion of contamination from releases all 

4 over the small site with no significant 

5 terrain features to channel or moderate the 

6 wind. 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Any characters --

8 I mean, I think the site, within the air, 

9 soil, and water sampling, I mean, just part of 

10 the environmental -- characterization program. 

11 Is that something that would be in --

12 referenced or cited? 

13 MR. NELSON: I'm unsure about that.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: I mean, I think 

15 that's the root of this issue, is that the 

16 reviewer was aware that there was certainly 

17 monitoring that was done at the site, and some 

18 actual measurements taken, and whether or not 

19 that would be relevant to that TBD. 

20 MR. NELSON: So you're referring to 

21 soil, water, and that type. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. WINSLOW: Yes, and that data is 

2 contained in most of the environmental reports 

3 that I've seen. It's just I'm not sure how 

4 relative it is to the assignment of dose for 

5 onsite workers. 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: See, I think this 

7 has only come up -- I know, at Mound they came 

8 up with soil contamination because of the D&D, 

9 but we haven't been through D&D at Paducah, so 

10 it's not as relevant from that standpoint. 

11 What I would suggest is just leave this for 

12 review. I think it's just -- it's information. 

13 I don't think there's any pressing issue on 

14 the question of validity on this one. I think 

15 it's just information. 

16 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: I would leave it 

18 as information and close it. So on 

19 occupational internal, I think there's going 

20 to be some overlap because, again, we get into 

21 Bechtel Jacobs 2001. See if I can navigate 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this. 

2 This is issue 5. The question of 

3 equations for estimating -- 24 hour excretion. 

4 The basis is spot urine samples. Those -- that 

5 -- those equations are no longer in --

6 MR. NELSON: Right. They got 

7 removed. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: -- so they got 

9 removed. Are they being still used? Are they 

10 in the Paducah site field guidance for dose 

11 reconstructors? I mean, I guess that was the 

12 question because there was some question --

13 there was some concerns about the -- whether 

14 the equations were correct. 

15 MR. NELSON: I think there was an 

16 error in the equation, I think, and it was 

17 removed as far as how they are applied with 

18 tools. Susan, you got an answer to that one? 

19 MS. WINSLOW: Not at the moment 

20 because for some reason I can't even find the 

21 equation that was in the old version. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. FITZGERALD: Yes, I don't have 

2 my computer up at the moment, but it's -- I 

3 did check it out, and that's been dropped in 

4 the 2007 version. And the only question is, 

5 and there's no -- there's just a mistake in 

6 the equation, and if it's still being used, 

7 perhaps, as a field guide or something. 

8 You know, the 2007 is streamlined, 

9 I think, as a document, compared with the 

10 2004. Some of these things just drop out. 

11 MR. CALHOUN: 2004, that's the one 

12 we're looking at? Because there's been three 

13 since then. 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, the one we -

15 - I guess, the one they looked at --

16 MR. CALHOUN: `04, `06, and then 

17 February of `07. 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, they would 

19 have looked at `04. 

20 MR. CALHOUN: Might want to look --

21 MR. NELSON: Let's see -- equations 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- let's see where that is. It's for 

2 estimation of 24 hour excretion based on spot 

3 urines. We could probably get back to you on 

4 that one. 

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I mean, 

6 again, it's --

7 MR. NELSON: And we could look and 

8 see what they're using for a tool on that. 

9 We'll get back to you on that --

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. 

11 MR. NELSON: -- the best thing to 

12 do --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: And, again, it's 

14 somewhat good because it doesn't show up in 

15 the 2007 TBD, but it sort of also raises the 

16 question when these documents are streamlined, 

17 some of the detailed equations and algorithms, 

18 are they moved to a different location and 

19 still used, or are they -- does the fact 

20 they're deleted means that they're either not 

21 relevant or used that way anymore, and it's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just, you know, raises that question. 

2 MR. NELSON: We'll follow up on 

3 that and close that out. 

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Same thing with 

5 the next one, which is issue 16, which is, you 

6 know, limited fecal analysis and breath 

7 analyses were performed at Paducah, and 

8 there's no mention of it now. 

9 MR. NELSON: Well, to date, we 

10 haven't found any --

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Still haven't 

12 found --

13 MR. NELSON: -- fecal analysis --

14 MEMBER BEACH: Haven't found any? 

15 MR. NELSON: No. If we would find 

16 such a -- if we find a, you know, claim with 

17 that in it, we would do it on a case by case 

18 basis. 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: All right. Case by 

20 case. Because it wasn't by intention or 

21 omission. It was just, you have not found any 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 evidence? 

2 MR. NELSON: No. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. That's fine 

4 from our standpoint. 

5 MEMBER BEACH: So that one's 

6 closed? 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes --

8 MR. NELSON: I think there was a 

9 few -- on the site for fecal. I mean, I've 

10 seen some of that in the PACE document, but 

11 that would be something that we would deal 

12 with on a case by case if we were to get 

13 those. 

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Well -- I think 

15 it acknowledges that fecal analysis and 

16 positive breath analysis were very limited at 

17 Paducah, but there's no information provided 

18 in the TBD. Sort of a catch-22. If it wasn't 

19 done very much, maybe it would be relevant to 

20 mention. But, anyway. But I still would close 

21 that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Number 17. Inadequate and 

2 internally inconsistent discussion -- in vivo 

3 measurements. This is sort of a similar issue. 

4 It wasn't widely performed, but, you know, 

5 should the TBD still provide some information 

6 on the in vivo program, what little there was?

7 MR. NELSON: We can elaborate on 

8 that. I know there was a table in there that 

9 was kind of confusing in table 5.6, so we plan 

10 on simplifying that table, and we can 

11 elaborate some on that accounting system. 

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, so NIOSH 

13 will elaborate. 

14 MEMBER BEACH: Close that one? 

15 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I think all of 

16 these will be evident in the issuance of the 

17 document. 

18 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: I think this only 

20 calls for a little bit of elaboration in the 

21 document as to how the in vivo is --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 performed.

2 Next issue is number 18, which is 

3 use of unverified bioassay data. And this gets 

4 to a whole bugaboo, which is the verification 

5 of the database itself. And what's cited in 

6 the SC&A review is this Dodd, 2002, where it 

7 notes that the data that's included in the 

8 database -- this is the internal database, 

9 this is going back, again, for eight years --

10 consists of in vivo data and urine card data. 

11 This data has not been through a 

12 verification and validation process. Therefore 

13 it should not be considered a data record. And 

14 I guess the comeback question is, has it been 

15 through V&V since then? 

16 MR. NELSON: The data in the file, 

17 they were pulled from databases which 

18 contained official file -- official site 

19 records. The in vivo records are hard copy 

20 records of personnel monitoring results from 

21 the mobile whole body counter and the urine 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 card data. They were actually five by seven 

2 index cards that contained personal urinalysis 

3 results. 

4 And the use of data from official 

5 site records would be applicable to the 

6 development of a coworker. So we felt they 

7 were actually -- when we first got that 

8 historical urinalysis data, it was marked as 

9 unverified. But then we found out that it was 

10 actually an official site record, so we felt 

11 it was good records. 

12 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, but the 

13 question is whether the site actually ended up 

14 verifying before it went ahead and adopted it 

15 into the site records. 

16 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: This is sort --

18 this is sort of, to me, reminiscent of the 

19 chain of custody -- question we get into --

20 MR. NELSON: Okay--

21 MR. FITZGERALD: -- in the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 environmental, you know, is the raw data, has 

2 it been V&Ved, validated -- verified and 

3 validated? 

4 MR. NELSON: That I don't -- I 

5 don't believe I -- I don't have an answer for 

6 that one. That wasn't what I got out of the 

7 question. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: And I think this 

9 one probably is important to at least be able 

10 to establish that somebody somewhere verified 

11 and validate the database, which is the --

12 what's being used in dose reconstruction. This 

13 would be the internal --

14 MR. NELSON: Yes, because our 

15 response was basically they were official site 

16 records, and your question is --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think the 

18 question's just raised because it was deemed 

19 as unverified at some point, as you were 

20 saying, and it was adopted into the DOE 

21 database, but, you know --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. NELSON: Okay. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: -- there's been 

3 instances in the past where, you know, no one 

4 went back to ensure that the hard copy was 

5 transferred into the electronic --

6 MEMBER BEACH: So actually do a --

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Well --

8 MEMBER BEACH: -- line by line --

9 MR. FITZGERALD: -- a sampling to 

10 at least validate that, you know, you have 

11 some assurance that it was done. And this may 

12 just be a record that DOE accomplished it. I 

13 would think they would have. 

14 MR. CALHOUN: And if you -- but if 

15 it wasn't, what would you do? 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, we're kind 

17 of in a --

18 MR. CALHOUN: With this being an 

19 SEC site, what do you do? 

20 MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know --

21 MR. CALHOUN: We could invalidate 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 data and just not use any of it. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: It's just 

3 interesting -- but, you know, it's interesting 

4 that, you know, in the public record you have 

5 it's listed as unverified. And the first order 

6 would be to see if somebody did go through and 

7 verify it, and if it turns out there's no 

8 record of that, then you're sort of left with 

9 this, you know, uncertainty about it. 

10 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: You're right, on 

12 an SEC thing, that would be --

13 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I just don't 

14 know --

15 MR. FITZGERALD: -- very first 

16 thing you would do, but still, you know, I 

17 think there's a responsibility to make sure 

18 the data hangs together. I would put this 

19 right up with the contamination issue, so 

20 maybe one of the two issues with this site 

21 that would be important, even though it's an 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 SEC site, to at least be able to answer, you 

2 know, is the data V&Ved, and, and who did it. 

3 So I would leave that open pending 

4 a NIOSH response at the next Work Group 

5 meeting. The final one, which is the -- this 

6 is the -- to me, this is, again, an 

7 enhancement issue, this question of the 

8 selection of distinct time periods. Let's see 

9 if I can find it. 

10 MEMBER BEACH: While you're looking 

11 for that, so far we have just three open items 

12 out of this list, 9, 15, and 18? Is that what 

13 -- is that what everybody has? 

14 MR. KATZ: You have 9 --

15 MEMBER BEACH: 15 and 19? 

16 MR. NELSON: Let's see what I got. 

17 MR. KATZ: 15. That's correct. 

18 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That's what 

20 I've got. 

21 MEMBER BEACH: Just wanted to make 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sure. 

2 MR. KATZ: That's correct. 

3 MEMBER BEACH: Thanks. 

4 MR. NELSON: I missed number 9. 

5 What was 9? I guess that -- I'll just mark it 

6 on this. 

7 MEMBER BEACH: There are additional 

8 factors that contribute to --

9 MR. NELSON: Okay. 9, 15, and 18? 

10 MEMBER BEACH: 18. 

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, Elyse is going to 

12 address that at the --

13 MR. NELSON: Right. 

14 MR. KATZ: -- next meeting. 

15 MEMBER BEACH: Right. 

16 MR. KATZ: Issue 9. 

17 MR. NELSON: I think what you were 

18 looking for, Joe, is on page 45. 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I got it here 

20 finally. This goes back to Ikenberry, and the 

21 way he sort of splits the bioassay results 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 into two periods, from `52 to `88, and the 

2 question was there was no explanation why that 

3 was done, I guess, is the biggest reason. 

4 And, certainly, the reviewer here 

5 posits you could do -- actually argue for 

6 three distinct periods, so, you know, I guess, 

7 stepping back from it, I wasn't quite sure, 

8 you know, what the significance was either 

9 way. But nonetheless, it does raise some 

10 questions. 

11 MR. NELSON: Okay. It says there's 

12 apparently a obvious separation in data, in 

13 attachment A of TIB-37, early in 1980. And 

14 looking at table A1, it's not until 1980 the 

15 data consistently decreases for both 50th and 

16 84th percentile. 

17 And although the data drops 

18 somewhat in 1951, as SC&A pointed out, it's a 

19 relatively small drop, that's followed by an 

20 increase later. The current coworker data as 

21 calculated appears to be sufficient and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 provides favorable coworker evaluation. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think, 

3 again, it was simply wanting to understand 

4 better why that particular split because, if 

5 you split it three ways, the, the 50th 

6 percentile -- 4th percentile provide rather 

7 different answers. For `52 to `59, `59 to `80, 

8 and `80 to `88. 

9 I guess it comes down to whether 

10 you're seeing distinct differences between 

11 those chronic time periods, chronic intake 

12 time periods, and what implications that has 

13 for dose estimation. 

14 MR. NELSON: Well, I don't have a 

15 great answer for that. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: No, I think most 

17 of it just comes to -- Ikenberry split it two 

18 ways and -- but didn't really provide much of 

19 an explanation why it was laid out that way. 

20 And the reviewer kind of played around with 

21 it, found that if you did it based on, you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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, obvious differences in the urinalysis 

2 results, you would actually, in his view, come 

3 up with three periods where you have what 

4 looks like a -- distinct patterns. 

5 Now where I fall short is figuring 

6 out what difference that makes in the final 

7 analysis, you know, if you did it using these 

8 three time periods versus the two. And that 

9 part -- that's why I made it a secondary 

10 issue. I'm not sure in the final analysis 

11 whether it makes a big difference. 

12 But I think it goes back to 

13 explaining why -- this may be moot. I don't 

14 know, does this carry forward? I didn't verify 

15 --

16 MR. NELSON: Based on our -- my 

17 understanding of the coworker, I'm not sure 

18 that it's even carried forward. 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I -- that 

20 would be the first thing because I think this 

21 is a little confusing as to why, although I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 it's for the same reason that they offer 

2 two distinct chronic intake periods. So if a 

3 worker fell into one period versus another, 

4 you would apply different mean value for the 

5 50th and 84th. 

6 MR. NELSON: I am not 100 percent 

7 on that. Page 45. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: So I, you know, I 

9 think it affects the assignment, but I'm not 

10 sure whether it makes a big difference in the 

11 end. That'd be useful to look at. I would hold 

12 this open, just, you know, get a -- maybe an 

13 explanation as to, one, is it carried forward 

14 because, again, how that's treated in the 

15 revision would be the relevant question. 

16 And then whether the three time 

17 periods versus the two with Ikenberry's 

18 proposal, whether that would be a big deal or 

19 not. 

20 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

21 MR. KATZ: Okay, so this one's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 open? 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think we 

3 can bring it up next time. And it may have 

4 been superceded with the new approach. 

5 MR. NELSON: We have, what, 19 18?

6 MR. FITZGERALD: 9 -- 18, 19. 4?

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Correct. 

8 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

9 MEMBER BEACH: So far. 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: That was -- that 

11 was my -- 

12 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, we're not doing 

13 -- we're not doing Oak Ridge. Okay. 

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: No. 

15 MEMBER BEACH: That's right. 

16 Nevermind. I keep trying to give you those, so 

17 you --

18 MR. FITZGERALD: And just to 

19 complete that, for the primaries, I have five 

20 -- 9 and 11 are combined. Same issue. 

21 MR. KATZ: Right, although those 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 are in abeyance? Those aren't really --

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, abeyance --

3 MR. KATZ: -- those aren't really 

4 open. 

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I got 

6 abeyance. Let's see, 15? 

7 MR. NELSON: 15, yes. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. It should be 

9 in abeyance, and close, closed. 15 is -- is 

10 open. 

11 MR. KATZ: 15 is open. The other 

12 one's in abeyance, meaning everyone's agreeing 

13 on it, it's just --

14 MEMBER BEACH: 16 is an SC&A 

15 actually. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, right. 

17 MR. NELSON: How'd that go, Ted? 

18 The abeyance? 

19 MR. KATZ: So, abeyance, when we 

20 put it in -- we close ones where we're 

21 completely clear on the solution and we agree. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Abeyance is an issue where we think we agree, 

2 but we do want to see the final written 

3 response, or change, whatever it might be. 

4 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

5 MR. KATZ: So that's what abeyance 

6 means. 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: The ones I have 

8 open are 5, 15 -- no, no. Just those two. And 

9 then SC&A has --

10 MEMBER BEACH: SC&A has 16, but 17 

11 was open. NIOSH was going to do OTIB-37 -- is 

12 what I have. And then 19. 

13 MR. KATZ: 17 is in abeyance, 

14 though --

15 MEMBER BEACH: That's in abeyance? 

16 Okay.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, it's not open. Yes, 

18 17 is in abeyance. 19 was closed. 

19 MR. NELSON: I thought we took care 

20 of 17. 

21 MR. KATZ: You were going to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 clarify the statistical basis, so --

2 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

3 MR. KATZ: -- that's why. But 

4 that's pretty close to being settled. 

5 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I have 5 and 

7 15. And --

8 MR. KATZ: Yes so, right. You're 

9 right, Chuck. 17, we ultimately had in 

10 abeyance and we simply closed. We agreed on --

11 we understand it. So it's closed. You do need 

12 to add some language to the --

13 MEMBER BEACH: I thought there was 

14 something --

15 MR. FITZGERALD: On 16, SC&A agreed 

16 that we would validate that the PACE 2001 

17 document --

18 MR. KATZ: Right. 

19 MR. FITZGERALD: -- includes the 

20 incidents, and that's 16. 

21 MR. KATZ: Right, that one is in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 abeyance. 

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, and --

3 MEMBER BEACH: And 19, I just have 

4 that table, that 6.1. You were already --

5 MR. FITZGERALD: 19 is closed, but 

6 we're going to complete that table relative to 

7 the issue that Hans raised, which was left 

8 out, and NIOSH is going to respond. 

9 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: But at the table I 

11 think we agreed on the response -- so that's 

12 more of an abeyance. So, really, only two 

13 actions and several abeyances. 

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, 19 is closed, 

15 actually, that's right. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: So 5 and 15 were 

17 the two that were -- that are over on the 

18 primaries. The two primaries and four 

19 secondaries. Good. And what I'll do is I'll go 

20 ahead and take a crack at this and circulate 

21 it, and you can, you know, revise it, and, you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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, we'll finalize it. 

2 MR. NELSON: Okay. 

3 MR. KATZ: Sounds good. 

4 MR. FITZGERALD: For the next --

5 while it's still fresh. 

6 MEMBER BEACH: Do we want to try 

7 and set something for March? 

8 MR. KATZ: We can. Who are we 

9 missing -- Andy, are you on the phone? 

10 MEMBER BEACH: Andy? 

11 MR. NELSON: Yes, we won't be done 

12 until the end of March, so it might want to be 

13 April --

14 MR. KATZ: We might want to wait, 

15 then. 

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, we'll 

17 wait. 

18 MR. KATZ: Schedule that far out, 

19 let's wait and see how things come. 

20 MR. NELSON: What do you think 

21 about -- do we want to combine sites in one 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 meeting? Because it would get very confusing 

2 for me. I have a hard enough time with one 

3 site. So -- 

4 MR. KATZ: I mean, yes, I mean, 

5 ideally we'd do both K-25 and --

6 MR. NELSON: They're going to get 

7 more complex. 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: We can separate 

9 during the -- like do --

10 MR. KATZ: During the meeting, yes 

11 --

12 MR. FITZGERALD: -- during the 

13 meeting, just do one site at a time. 

14 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

15 MR. NELSON: Right. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe in the 

17 morning it could be --

18 MR. NELSON: I think K-25's going

19 to take a while. I think there's some issues 

20 we've got to work through, from what I'm 

21 hearing, anyways. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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: That's fine, and if it's 

2 clear that it's way too much work for one day, 

3 we can have a two day meeting, too.

4 MR. NELSON: Okay. I was just 

5 trying -- I like to -- to be able to put my 

6 arms around it, and we've got one person and 

7 you're trying to cover two entire facilities, 

8 and --

9 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

10 MR. NELSON: -- it's a bit 

11 overwhelming. 

12 MR. FITZGERALD: It might be 

13 worthwhile having two days and have the 

14 followup on this --

15 MR. NELSON: Right, and maybe with 

16 Portsmouth --

17 MR. FITZGERALD: -- go into the 

18 other site and save this third site for the 

19 next day, just to --

20 MR. NELSON: Yes, that would be my 

21 suggestion, or what I would --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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: Sure, and if you find 

2 that you're going to be ready on one site far 

3 before the other site, we can then just meet 

4 on that one site and wrap this stuff up. 

5 MEMBER BEACH: One's almost ready, 

6 right? Didn't you say Oak Ridge was close --

7 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

8 MEMBER BEACH: -- maybe.

9 MR. NELSON: No, not Oak Ridge --

10 MEMBER BEACH: Not Oak Ridge. 

11 MR. NELSON: Portsmouth. 

12 MEMBER BEACH: Portsmouth. 

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Portsmouth.

14 MR. NELSON: That's the order we 

15 went in, Paducah, Portsmouth, K-25.

16 MR. KATZ: Is Portsmouth a day's 

17 worth of work, or is it --

18 MR. NELSON: I believe it is. 

19 MR. KATZ: We could have a meeting 

20 just to close out these and do Portsmouth.

21 MR. NELSON: Right. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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: And then wait for K-25 

2 until after March, so, in which case, we could 

3 book this one if you want to. If you -- when 

4 will you be ready for Portsmouth? 

5 MR. NELSON: I would say February.

6 MR. KATZ: In February? 

7 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

8 MR. KATZ: From the beginning of 

9 February forward? 

10 MR. NELSON: Yes. 

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

12 MEMBER BEACH: We have a LANL 

13 meeting on the 11th. If there's nothing on the 

14 --

15 MR. KATZ: We don't have Andy, so 

16 we can't really settle this. 

17 MR. FITZGERALD: By email, I mean, 

18 if we know that much, we could do it by email.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. Yes, that's 

20 true. Sometimes, you just, but, you know, if 

21 we don't have Andy -- 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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: Well, let me check with 

2 you, you guys, though, because it will make it 

3 simpler if we just have one person to 

4 schedule. So let's look at February. 

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: February.

6 MR. KATZ: So we have the Board 

7 meeting the 23rd through the fifth, so we want 

8 to stay away from that. And the week before 

9 that, you know, this is not a meeting that's 

10 necessary for that Board meeting, so I'd like 

11 not to -- to book too much for the week --

12 MEMBER BEACH: We have Fernald on 

13 the 8th --

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Fernald on the 

15 8th, yes. 

16 MEMBER BEACH: And we have LANL on 

17 the 11th, so the 10th would be an obvious 

18 choice. 

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Thanks. 

20 MEMBER BEACH: For those of us that 

21 just have to come in and leave. The rest of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you --

2 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, well, 

3 see, I've got Fernald on the 8th. 

4 MEMBER BEACH: Right. 

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: And so nothing 

6 on the 9th and then the 10th. 

7 MEMBER BEACH: Well, that's what I 

8 mean. That's why it's an obvious choice, so 

9 people that are stuck here anyway won't be 

10 free on the 10th with nothing to do. 

11 MR. KATZ: So, Phil is saying he'd 

12 be stuck on the 9th. 

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, well. 

14 Actually, you know, if we move Fernald -- it 

15 might be possible to move it to the 9th, and 

16 we could just have 9th, 10th, 11th. 

17 MR. KATZ: Well, there's probably a 

18 reason why they aren't together right now.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Sort of an all 

20 uranium extravaganza. 

21 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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 BEACH: Yes, that seems kind 

2 of odd to have one on the --

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Served on the 

4 half shell. 

5 MEMBER BEACH: -- the 8th and the 

6 11th. 

7 MR. KATZ: Well, it's not odd 

8 because it's -- it's because someone has a 

9 conflict because we generally start with 

10 adjacent dates and then move out from there. 

11 Okay, so --

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: You've got to 

13 be here on the 11th -- Josie? 

14 MR. KATZ: So what about the -- 

15 wait, you don't want the 7th, Josie, because 

16 you don't want to travel on the --

17 MEMBER BEACH: No. Well, and I'm 

18 going to be here on the 11th, too, so. Try to 

19 avoid flying twice in one week, if I can.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes. Well, maybe we 

21 should --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL 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. NELSON: Can we get it out to 

2 March, then? Or is that too much -- too far 

3 away? This will give us a little time to, I 

4 mean, this is all, maybe some new stuff we got 

5 to do here.

6 MR. KATZ: What about --

7 MR. NELSON: Then we got to bring 

8 in everything from --

9 MR. KATZ: No, I understand. What 

10 about the week after the Board meeting? It's 

11 the last part of February and the first part 

12 of March? I note that week, that whole week is 

13 fine, as far as I'm concerned. So what about 

14 the first of March? Does that work for 

15 everybody? 

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: That works. 

17 MEMBER BEACH: How about the 4th? 

18 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Won't be on 

19 the 4th, I'll be on travel --

20 MR. KATZ: The 4th will mean you're 

21 traveling on Saturday. The 4th of March is a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Friday. So let's try for March 1st, and I'll 

2 check with Andy, and if March 1st doesn't --

3 so you folks are good for March 2nd, too, or -

4 - 

5 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

7 MR. KATZ: March 3rd, even? Is that 

8 true? 

9 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

10 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, I'll try for 

12 1st, and use 2nd or 3rd as possibilities, too, 

13 with Andy. We'll see. 

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Because I 

15 guarantee on the 5th on that week I won't be 

16 available. I'll be in the Caribbean.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Nice. 

18 MR. FITZGERALD: Just make sure you 

19 have a speakerphone. 

20 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: My wife would 

21 throw me overboard. Find some little hunky 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on Gaseous 

Diffusion Plants/GDP, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Work Group on Gaseous Diffusion Plants/GDP 

for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only 

and is subject to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 thirty year old guy there. 

2 MR. KATZ: Are we adjourned with 

3 that great comment? 

4 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay, yes. The 

5 1st or 2nd. 

6 MR. KATZ: Are we adjourned? 

7 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, we're 

8 adjourned. 

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you, 

10 everyone, for hanging with us on the phone. 

11 Have a good day. 

12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

13 matter went off the record at 2:21 p.m.)

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19