1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

KANSAS CITY PLANT WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

MARCH 2, 2017

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, Josie 

Beach, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

JOSIE BEACH, Chair

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, Member

LORETTA R. VALERIO, Member
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

PETE DARNELL, DCAS

JACKSON ELLIS, ORAU Team

JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

PAT MCCLOSKEY, ORAU Team

JIM NETON, DCAS

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team
3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Contents

Welcome and Roll Call............................. 4

DCAS Presentation of Updated KCP Site Profile..... 6

SC&A Review of Site Profile...................... 10

Additional Items................................. 69

Path Forward for Issue Resolution or............. 72

Presentation to Board............................ 72

Adjourn.......................................... 75
4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 10:05 a.m.

3 Welcome and Roll Call 

4 MR. KATZ: Welcome, everybody. This 

5 is the Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health. 

6 It is the Kansas City Plant Work Group, and today's 

7 agenda, which is posted on the NIOSH website under 

8 scheduled meetings for today's date, is pretty 

9 simple. We're addressing an updated, a newly 

10 updated Site Profile for the Kansas City Plant. 

11 That's the sort of guidelines for doing dose 

12 reconstructions. 

13 And SC&A has reviewed that Site Profile 

14 and has the review in. And both the Site Profile 

15 and SC&A's review are posted on the NIOSH website, 

16 at least the review current from SC&A is on the 

17 NIOSH web site. That's what we'll be discussing 

18 today.

19 And let's get started with roll call. 

20 For roll call we're talking about a site, so please 

21 speak to conflict of interest. I can cover the 

22 Board Members because I know who's on here. No 

23 Board Members have conflicts for Kansas City, but 
5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 let me just run through what we have.

2 (Roll call.)

3 MR. KATZ: Okay then. Let me just 

4 remind everyone to please mute your phones except 

5 for when you're addressing the group. That will 

6 help everybody with audio quality. And don't put 

7 the call on hold at any point, but hang up and dial 

8 back in if you must. 

9 And with that, Josie, it's your agenda.

10 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Thank you. And 

11 good morning, everyone.

12 I just want to do just a quick overview 

13 of the background documents, just a reminder. Our 

14 first Site Profile review was done in 2013. We did 

15 have some issues from that Site Profile. We have 

16 two matrices that have been pulled together, one 

17 from 8/20/15 and the last one from 3/14/16. Then, 

18 of course, we have the new TBD that was issued the 

19 first of the year. We have NIOSH's memo that 

20 pulled together from both of those matrices and 

21 some other items that were discussed during Work 

22 Group meetings for the SEC. And then we have 

23 SC&A's memo looking at NIOSH's review. 
6 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So I believe, Pete, you're going to 

2 start with your memo and go through your TBD items, 

3 and then we'll move onto SC&A. Is that correct?

4 MR. DARNELL: We can certainly do it 

5 that way, if that's what you'd like.

6 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Yes, that's what 

7 the agenda says, so that sounds good to me. 

8 DCAS Presentation of Updated KCP Site Profile 

9 MR. DARNELL: Okay. So I took up the 

10 memo that we wrote in March of 2016 stating what 

11 we put into the TBD.

12 And Jackson, if you wouldn't mind going 

13 over the full changes to the TBD when I'm done, I'd 

14 appreciate it.

15 So back in March of last year, we pulled 

16 together the requirements from the previous TBD 

17 Issues Matrix and the ER Reports Issues Matrix and 

18 came up with the path forward for updating the final 

19 TBD after the ER failed to qualify. Basically, we 

20 have a number of points that we were going to add 

21 to the TBD dealing with natural uranium operations 

22 from 550 to 255 using the Battelle-6000 

23 methodology. 
7 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And the post-operations period, we 

2 bounded by using samples at 49 picocuries per cubic 

3 meter. Tritium water operations, we had most of 

4 them, since we bounded from 1/1/59 to 12/31/75. We 

5 also addressed magnesium thorium operations, and 

6 I think we'll probably be discussing that a little 

7 bit later, too.

8 We did reach out. Pat McCloskey 

9 reached out to the Kansas City Site in preparation 

10 for this meeting, and they had found nothing new 

11 to add to the dates for mag-thorium operations.

12 We also updated the TBD to include 

13 post-operational periods from 1978 to '84 and using 

14 a bounding maximum surface contamination rate for 

15 D&D operations and OTIB-70. We also added in

16 information for organically-bound tritium ops like 

17 the hi-lo switch plates and the dividing 1.77 

18 millirem year per dose for all workers. The D&D 

19 we bounded using the Rockwell dosimetry data from 

20 6 of '84 through 9 of '86. 

21 That's really, with the exception of 

22 some information about rad waste handling and rad 

23 area maintenance, housekeeping, and so on, all the 
8 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information that was added to the TBD.

2 Jackson, if you could go over more 

3 specifically how the TBD changed from the previous 

4 version?

5 MR. ELLIS: Sure. This is Jackson 

6 Ellis with the ORAU team, the TBD author. I made 

7 the changes. 

8 We added basically intakes for those 

9 new operations and post-operation periods that you 

10 just mentioned. The majority of that was internal 

11 intake additions to the TBD. We also added a 

12 coworker study to the TBD to assign an external 

13 coworker dose. The X-ray section was updated to 

14 new projects on guidance and standards. 

15 And that's pretty much a summary of what 

16 the additions to the TBD were. There were some 

17 other changes very specifically on comments from 

18 SC&A and then through the comment resolution cycle, 

19 internal and external.

20 MR. DARNELL: I guess that's about it 

21 then.

22 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Pete, is that all 

23 you're going to cover?
9 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. DARNELL: Yes, that's pretty much 

2 what was in the agenda. I'm looking at this, and 

3 in seeing that word, they're bringing the changes 

4 to the TBD with what SC&A put out in their 

5 memorandum, so I'm -- 

6 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, yes.

7 MR. DARNELL: -- really at a loss of how 

8 in-depth you want to go.

9 CHAIR BEACH: Well, yes, I think you're 

10 fine. I think it was great how you did a really 

11 good job pulling everything from both of those two 

12 initial matrices and then all of the new stuff that 

13 was added.

14 Is there -- are there any questions for 

15 NIOSH before SC&A kind of goes through?

16 (No audible response.)

17 CHAIR BEACH: Hearing no questions, 

18 Joe, if you want to -- well, this is the first time 

19 we've actually met on the TBD issue, so I think we 

20 just need to kind of go through them and make sure 

21 there's no questions. I understand there's 

22 agreement between SC&A and NIOSH, but I think we 

23 should go ahead and close them out as a Work Group, 
10 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 unless somebody has other ideas. 

2 MEMBER LOCKEY: No, I think that's 

3 good, Josie.

4 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Then Joe, I guess 

5 we'll hear from SC&A now.

6 SC&A Review of Site Profile 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and I'd like to 

8 echo what you just said, that this was a pretty good 

9 integrated listing of both the Site Profile issues 

10 that we had in the earlier matrix, as well as what 

11 came out of the ER review. 

12 And in terms -- and this is in a broader 

13 sense, and we'll get down to specifics and a sort 

14 of an itemized -- go through the itemized list, but 

15 we had a number of new exposure sources and 

16 operations that, given the level of research that 

17 we did on the ER, were clearly ones that needed to 

18 be added to the Site Profile. And I think NIOSH 

19 did a pretty good job of listing all those from the 

20 tritium to the -- some of the uranium operations 

21 and making sure that those were added to the scope 

22 of the Site Profile.

23 In general, we also as part of the ER 
11 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 process, but even earlier in the Site Profile 

2 process, had a number of maybe typical Site 

3 Profile-level technical comments, where for 

4 clarification purposes the basis for some of the 

5 technical values and perhaps some clarifications 

6 that need to be provided we identified. In some 

7 cases, they were sort of parked because we were busy 

8 on ER. And I think the listing that is provided 

9 is a pretty complete list of what was left in terms 

10 of resolution and in terms of those kinds of 

11 comments.

12 But I just want to say again that those 

13 are kind of the typical comments that are raised 

14 as we go that everyone recognizes, or 

15 clarifications and a need for perhaps better 

16 explanations. And that certainly was provided.

17 More fundamentally, perhaps, the 

18 coworker model and the validation and verification 

19 of D&D that was done and is acknowledged in here 

20 was an important aspect of review, where I think 

21 NIOSH was able to reassure itself and the Work Group 

22 that in terms of the records transfer from the 

23 original records to the electronic database, that 
12 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was in fact a very valid transfer, and there wasn't 

2 any clear or any obvious deficiencies or gaps. So 

3 that was another, I think a major step that I think 

4 the Work Group and NIOSH had agreed on originally. 

5 So in general, I think those were all 

6 covered in terms of the scope of what Pete and his 

7 folks had in this memo, so it provides a pretty 

8 complete listing.

9 Now I'm going to go through, as Josie 

10 wanted to do, in terms of the Work Group, each of 

11 these items so you'll have the opportunity to ask 

12 questions and perhaps make a recommendation for 

13 closure. So I'm just going to go down.

14 The memo that we provided on January 

15 27th pretty much follows the listing first of the 

16 ER-based list and then to the original Site Profile 

17 Matrix list. So if you want to follow, that pretty 

18 much tracks with what Pete had issued in his memo. 

19 The first item, the natural uranium 

20 operations from May 1st -- and this is the '50s. 

21 I think there, it was a case of making sure that 

22 there was language in the Site Profile that tracked 

23 with the agreements that were reached during the 
13 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ER discussions that the TBD-6000 would be used as 

2 the bounding methodology for doses during that time 

3 period. 

4 Now again, the Site Profile predated 

5 most of this research and discussion, so that 

6 clearly was something that could be added, and it 

7 was. So we were satisfied that the language that 

8 was provided in the Site Profile, using TBD-6000 

9 Table 7.8 for the inhalation intakes and Table 7.9 

10 for the ingestion intakes, we felt covered the 

11 ground that was agreed to during the ER discussion. 

12 So we feel it's been addressed.

13 So I don't know, Josie, do you want to 

14 take this item by item?

15 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, I guess just 

16 briefly, if anybody has any questions or comments, 

17 or if they have anything to discuss when they were 

18 reviewing this. I didn't have any questions, and 

19 I was comfortable with this first one. 

20 Anybody else have any questions or 

21 comments?

22 MEMBER VALERIO: Josie, this is 

23 Loretta. I was fine when I read through it.
14 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR BEACH: Perfect. Okay. 

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'm 

3 fine with this one.

4 CHAIR BEACH: All right.

5 MEMBER LOCKEY: The same. Jim Lockey.

6 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Great. And, 

7 Joe, I guess just continue to move through and 

8 we'll -- 

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I -- 

10 CHAIR BEACH: And I don't think we need 

11 to close these item by item, do we, Ted?

12 MR. KATZ: I think actually it would be 

13 better to do that, yes. 

14 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So the first one, 

15 everybody's in agreement that they agree with NIOSH 

16 and SC&A, and we need to go ahead and close this 

17 one?

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, so you could just say 

19 if anyone's in disagreement, speak up; otherwise, 

20 it's closed.

21 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. That sounds 

22 perfect. Thanks, Ted.

23 MR. KATZ: Thanks.
15 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR BEACH: So the first one is 

2 closed.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I might add that 

4 we did go into probably a lot of detail during the 

5 ER discussions, so -- 

6 CHAIR BEACH: Right, definitely.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: -- we don't perhaps 

8 need to revisit so much of that, but just to 

9 acknowledge that a lot of the ER-derived issues 

10 were pretty fully vetted in that discussion. And 

11 so we find ourselves pretty much at the endpoint 

12 for most of these, if not all of them.

13 CHAIR BEACH: Right, yes.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: The next one is the 

15 post-operational period. This is after the 

16 operation was closed down from March of '55 to 

17 August of '59, which was bounded using the maximum 

18 gross-alpha air sample, which was estimated from 

19 the source term information that was available for 

20 those operations. 

21 And I provide the quote from the TBD 

22 itself in terms of applying that 49 picocuries per 

23 cubic meter value for the maximum gross-alpha 
16 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 measured air sample as the bounding value that 

2 would be used for those post-operational periods 

3 in terms of exposure pathway dose estimations.

4 And that pretty much covers it. I 

5 mean, that's the bounding value for -- it's not so 

6 much the residual period, but it's the 

7 post-operational period for those -- the original 

8 natural uranium operations.

9 So we didn't have any issue with that. 

10 And I think that was pretty much acknowledged 

11 during our ER discussions, so we're certainly 

12 satisfied.

13 CHAIR BEACH: I found the same thing in 

14 reviewing the transcript from our last meeting.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

16 CHAIR BEACH: I have no questions or 

17 comments, and I agree with that.

18 Anybody else have any disagreements 

19 with closing that item?

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

21 don't. I'm good with it.

22 MEMBER VALERIO: This is Loretta. I'm 

23 good with it.
17 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. LOCKEY: This is Jim. Me, too.

2 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Sounds great. 

3 Thank you.

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Moving along, 

5 tritium water operation. You know, one thing 

6 during the ER reviews that turned out to be a 

7 revelation, this was during the research that we 

8 all did onsite, was the presence of several 

9 different tritium activities, tritium source 

10 activities, one of which was Kansas City during an 

11 earlier period, '59 to '75, was bottling small 

12 bottles of tritium for use in actual 

13 instrumentation monitors as far as calibration. 

14 And the issue there on this particular 

15 item was to come up with a bounding dose for that 

16 operation, which we -- was actually somewhat 

17 involved. And I remember the modeling and the 

18 estimations that NIOSH had performed to come up 

19 with a value that would be both reasonably accurate 

20 and bounding of whatever dose someone might 

21 receive -- operator may have received from handling 

22 these -- handling tritium and bottling it. 

23 And the fixed -- as the Work Group might 
18 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 recall, it was a very -- relatively small dose 

2 involved: 6.66 millirem per year. But this would 

3 be applied to all workers, because again, you could 

4 not certainly just determine who was in that 

5 particular area when the bottling was occurring. 

6 So NIOSH conservatively is applying it to all 

7 workers.

8 In any case, we felt that pretty much 

9 satisfied the discussions that we had during the 

10 ER -- or SEC period, and that was pretty much where 

11 everybody had come out in terms of agreement in the 

12 Work Group as I recall. So we're satisfied with 

13 that one.

14 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, and I agree with 

15 that, Joe. Our discussions -- 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: They were pretty 

17 lengthy on that one.

18 CHAIR BEACH: Yes.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: I think we spent -- 

20 CHAIR BEACH: They were.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: -- quite a bit of time 

22 talking on that one. 

23 CHAIR BEACH: And NIOSH's addition to 
19 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that 6.66 for all workers was exactly what we had 

2 asked for, so I'm comfortable with that.

3 Other Work Group Members, any comments 

4 or questions or agreement?

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. 

6 Bringing back a lot of fond memories and a lot of 

7 talks that we had to do. I agree with this.

8 MEMBER VALERIO: This is Loretta. I 

9 agree. 

10 MEMBER LOCKEY: And I agree, too.

11 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. We agree to close 

12 the tritium operations. And then the other part 

13 of that was the nickel. And we agreed that we were 

14 not going to add any dose. 

15 I don't know if you have anything more 

16 to say about that, Joe.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: No, no. 

18 CHAIR BEACH: Yes.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: It was pretty clear 

20 that wasn't significant.

21 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Thank you very 

22 much. So moving on to the magnesium.

23 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and this should 
20 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bring a lot of fond memories for everyone on this 

2 one. It turned out to be a very intense research 

3 task.

4 This involves the magnesium operations 

5 that we could actually verify from '61 to '63 and 

6 from '70 to '77. And '63 to '70, I think the Work 

7 Group, after some effort, and certainly with 

8 NIOSH's additional research, decided there was 

9 still some ambiguity. We had certainly some 

10 documentation that NIOSH identified that certainly 

11 was strongly indicative of no operations during 

12 that time period, but we also had some worker 

13 interviews that kind of fuzzed it up in the sense 

14 that there were some claims of activity.

15 So I think, again, the Work Group felt 

16 that there wasn't anything that strongly 

17 corroborated activity during that period, and 

18 certainly the inventory information, both 

19 classified and otherwise, sort of suggests there 

20 wasn't inventory at the Site. 

21 So I think the way it was left was that 

22 NIOSH would be attentive to any additional new 

23 information that might have become available that 
21 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would clarify, perhaps confirm that in the future, 

2 but certainly the Work Group was persuaded, I

3 think, that there wasn't anything that strongly 

4 suggested that there was an operational -- 

5 operations during that time. So that's kind of how 

6 it was left on that.

7 But for the other time periods, there 

8 was, as I recall, one follow-up set of measurements 

9 that were taken, I think it was 1969 or '70, that 

10 provided a basis for assigning an airborne limit 

11 of 3E^(-11) that was the administrative airborne 

12 limit that was applied for magnesium thorium. I 

13 think it was the '70 time frame. And based on that, 

14 that was the bounding exposure value that was 

15 applied for exposures during the time period where 

16 you actually had active operations.

17 And for the ingestion rate, OTIB-09, 

18 which is I think a pretty standard application, was 

19 used as well to support dose reconstruction.

20 And I went ahead and, for the Work Group, put the 

21 specific quote from the Site Profile right there 

22 in our memo. And we felt that was pretty detailed 

23 and covered the ground pretty thoroughly as far as 
22 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 how it applied. 

2 And there was a question, how would you 

3 apply this to different sets of workers that might 

4 be in the area, not only the operators themselves, 

5 but maybe laborers in the area and supervisors? 

6 And I think that was also laid out pretty 

7 specifically in the Site Profile. 

8 So I think we're pretty satisfied. And 

9 I think the Work Group was pretty heavily engaged 

10 in this whole discussion on mag-thorium, so this 

11 should not be unfamiliar, and certainly the 

12 resolution should be pretty clear. And it was laid 

13 out I think fairly well in the Site Profile.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Hey, Joe, this is 

15 Brad. I just want to make sure that I'm reading 

16 this correctly.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: So we -- and I've been 

19 involved in mag-thorium chase, so we're looking at 

20 the operations from '61 to '63 and then the '70 to 

21 '77, is that correct?

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Those are the periods 

23 where we have clear operational records. For the 
23 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 '63 to '70, there is documentation including a 

2 memorandum that suggests or indicates that there 

3 were no mag-thorium operations being supported at 

4 the plant. 

5 But again, and we did a lot of worker 

6 interviews, as you remember, and there were some 

7 indications that some workers felt there were some 

8 things going on there but not clearly mag-thorium. 

9 There was -- as you recall, information was pretty 

10 compartmentalized and not -- workers themselves 

11 weren't as familiar with what was being done in 

12 certain locations in the plant. So I think that's 

13 why it was left the way it was, that there's 

14 certainly no confirmation of -- 

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

16 MR. FITZGERALD: -- that information, 

17 but we certainly want to leave that open a little 

18 bit.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. And we looked 

20 at that, because I remember because we'd hold up 

21 the documents and the stockpile that we had there, 

22 and we could clearly see the gap. 

23 But during those time periods this 3 to 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the -- the 3E^(-11), that is going to be given to 

2 everybody, or how would we do this? How are we 

3 going to do this? Because I know we're using 

4 OTIB-009.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, the 

6 implementation is included. And I was saying that 

7 the -- they're assuming a 10 percent exposure rate 

8 for supervisors that were in the mag-thorium areas. 

9 And again, the machining areas for mag-thorium are 

10 pretty well defined. If you remember the 

11 discussion we had about whether workers could 

12 easily move from one part of the operational area 

13 to a different part of the plant, it's one huge 

14 building, but the movement of workers was a pretty 

15 lengthy discussion that we had. And we did a lot 

16 of interviews just to establish to what extent 

17 there was such movement and whether people had 

18 unfettered access to areas where mag-thorium was 

19 being machined. 

20 And I think, ultimately, I think 

21 everyone was satisfied that the operators would 

22 have been exposed more directly. There might have 

23 been some workers in the general area exposed but 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to a lesser extent. And that's one reason there's 

2 more language as far as how you would apply that 

3 as far as supervisors and laborers in the general 

4 location. So laborers would get half of the 

5 operators' exposure. Supervisors would get 10 

6 percent. 

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

8 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, that paragraph lays 

9 it out pretty well for the -- it's like three 

10 different classes. The administrative, it 

11 actually goes into clerical, like supervisors. So 

12 anyway, I was satisfied with the way that was laid 

13 out --

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and as I recall 

15 the discussion, that's maybe a standard 

16 application of -- or apportionment of exposure 

17 that's been used in the past as well. So when the 

18 Work Group was concerned about workers in the area, 

19 I think this is what sort of came out of that. 

20 There was an acknowledgment that, for 

21 implementation's sake, this could be done. So 

22 that's why it's laid out the way it is.

23 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I was just 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reading through that, and I just -- because I kept 

2 remembering the problems we were having with 

3 Department 20 and Model Shop and --

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- the different 

6 numbers that we had and everything else like that. 

7 But basically, it's coming down to machining 

8 operators, laborers, and supervisors, 

9 and --

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, even the 

11 clerical staff that might have been peripherally 

12 exposed are mentioned as well. 

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. But it's for 

14 those time periods that we discussed up there at 

15 the top. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: And we're keeping 

18 open the other areas. And if we come across other 

19 projects, then we can redo things.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I want to 

21 emphasize that the reason there's even any 

22 ambiguity is, on some of the interviews, there was 

23 some suggestion that something was going on, but 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we could never pin it down or get -- other than 

2 inventory documentation, as you were alluding to, 

3 which certainly indicates that, as far as what was 

4 there, it didn't appear to be there from '63 to '70. 

5 So that's certainly why it sort of tilted in that 

6 direction.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. I have some 

8 fond memories of those discussions. 

9 (Laughter.)

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, but okay, I just 

11 wanted to make sure I was reading it correctly 

12 there. And I am, so I appreciate that. 

13 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Any other 

14 comments or questions on this item, the 

15 mag-thorium? Any disagreements with closing at 

16 this time?

17 MEMBER VALERIO: Josie, I have a 

18 question before we close it.

19 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

20 MEMBER VALERIO: And I need to go back 

21 and finish reading the survey, reading the White

22 Paper, the Legal Limit White Paper, on the 

23 magnesium-thorium operations, but were there any 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 decontamination efforts between the '63 and the '70 

2 period time frame? 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: They did do -- and 

4 this, we got into some of this in terms of the actual 

5 machines themselves, whether they were cleaned or 

6 decontaminated, and I'm trying to remember exactly 

7 what we found as far as actual documentation. I 

8 don't think there was actual documentation -- we 

9 had documentation for the uranium machining 

10 period, but I don't believe we had actual -- and 

11 this is another reason there's a little bit of 

12 ambiguity, whether there was actual cleaning up of 

13 the equipment for the mag-thorium itself. And 

14 there's also some question about whether other 

15 operations occupied the same space immediately 

16 after, in terms of uranium operations. 

17 So to answer your question, no, I don't 

18 think we have any specific -- and maybe Peter can 

19 jump in -- but I don't think we have any specific 

20 documentation of cleanup of the mag-thorium 

21 equipment in 1963.

22 CHAIR BEACH: Yes. No, I was trying to 

23 think --
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: I mean, that would 

2 certainly corroborate, and we probably wouldn't 

3 even have the ambiguity if that were the case.

4 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, you're right. I 

5 read that machines were cleaned, but now going 

6 back, it was actually the uranium.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: It was the uranium 

8 that was cleaned.

9 CHAIR BEACH: Yes. I know we spent 

10 many hours discussing this.

11 Pete, do you have anything else to 

12 answer Loretta's questions?

13 MR. DARNELL: No, I don't remember 

14 anything off the top of my head. I'm trying to look 

15 back through some of the documents now. 

16 Pat, do you remember anything off the 

17 top of your head as far as cleanup on those?

18 MR. ELLIS: Yes, if you remember -- so 

19 the earlier operations were largely performed in 

20 Department 20 and the later operations in Model 

21 Shop. And so what we did is, we repurposed 

22 Department 20 for a new project that was coming in, 

23 and I remember reading that machines were cleaned, 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and there was a large decon effort of Department 

2 20 to move to that new operation. I don't have that 

3 SRDB number in front of me now, but I can look it 

4 up.

5 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, I kind of remember 

6 that as well.

7 MR. FITZGERALD: That was for 

8 mag-thorium or for uranium? Because Area 20 was 

9 cleaned a couple times, and I remember that -- I 

10 seem to remember the cleanup of equipment in areas 

11 being specific to the uranium operations, less so 

12 for mag-thorium. Because I think that was the --

13 one of the contributing reasons why the '63 to '70 

14 wasn't as, quote, clean as it might have been. 

15 Some ingredients were missing from that 

16 assessment. 

17 MR. ELLIS: Well, I'm remembering a 

18 document that talks about the number of people in 

19 Department 20 trickling down. As those operations 

20 came to a close, it was like 20 people, then 10 

21 people. And at the end, there was like three or 

22 four people in there.

23 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ELLIS: And that's the document I'm 

2 thinking about, and I'll go look for it, 

3 but --

4 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I remember --

5 MR. ELLIS: -- repurposed and stuff was 

6 cleaned and moved out of there. 

7 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, repurposing I 

8 remember. The downsizing of staff I remember. 

9 What I don't remember is the mag-thorium machining 

10 equipment, what have you, being cleaned.

11 CHAIR BEACH: So this is Josie. On 

12 page 12 of the TBD, Section 2.2, it talks about 

13 process descriptions, and I highlighted this when 

14 I was reviewing. It does talk about the work 

15 including operations with the uranium, 

16 magnesium-thorium. And it says, in addition, 

17 cleanup activities and D&D activities have 

18 potential exposure.

19 So it kind of alludes to both those 

20 processes and D&D of them, but it doesn't really 

21 give the specifics in that section. That's the 

22 only one I can find for -- that even mentions 

23 mag-thorium in the cleanup sense. 
32 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: So maybe we can, for 

2 Loretta, provide some clarity on the cleanup 

3 question. It sounds like that would be helpful.

4 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, I think so. I 

5 suspect we could do that with email.

6 MR. ELLIS: I'll look for it and 

7 provide it to Pete, and he can let you guys know.

8 CHAIR BEACH: Awesome. Thank you.

9 MEMBER VALERIO: Thank you.

10 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. And that would 

11 just have an implication for the time period 

12 between '63 and '70, or what do you -- 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think we 

14 looked at the question of what the exposure would 

15 be to workers who were, if you remember, cleaning 

16 equipment and D&Ding. And what is in the TBD and 

17 what we discussed was specific, I believe, and 

18 maybe -- it's been awhile -- specific to DU and 

19 uranium. But depending on what can be found, maybe 

20 we can be a little more specific on the mag-thorium.

21 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. And that is that 

22 time period between '63 and '70 because we're not 

23 assigning any dose during that period.
33 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: That's right.

2 CHAIR BEACH: So the original two time 

3 periods, I think those are covered, unless I'm 

4 missing something.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, if there's any 

6 dose for cleanup, it may actually be at the tail 

7 end of the 331, sort of the end of the first 

8 mag-thorium period.

9 CHAIR BEACH: Right.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: And they would have 

11 cleaned up and sort of shut things down, so it 

12 wouldn't necessarily affect the intervening 

13 period.

14 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, and I just 

16 wanted to throw out one thing. If I remember 

17 correctly, when we were talking about the 

18 mag-thorium part of this and the Model Shop with 

19 it, they kind of geared up for other jobs, like you 

20 were saying, and some of those machines were 

21 cleaned up and taken out and moved in, and a 

22 different type of machine was brought in for the 

23 next pending project. And that's why we kind of 
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 left that period open. 

2 As you said earlier, Joe, we couldn't 

3 find any operations or anything else for it, but 

4 that's why we kind of ended it. If I remember 

5 right --

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Yes, that --

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- it was at that 

8 point.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just remember the 

11 re-tooling and stuff like that, because we all 

12 understand the uniqueness of the Model Shop. And 

13 we call it a Model Shop with what they did and 

14 everything in there, so --

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, what Pat was 

16 saying is quite true. They repurposed the areas, 

17 and there were other operations going on 

18 afterwards.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, and if I 

20 remember, that's why we didn't kind of give a 

21 residual-type thing there because of how they redid 

22 that. But that's going off my memory, and I've 

23 slept a couple times since then. 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But anyway, Loretta, that's what I 

2 wanted you to kind of know a little bit, where --

3 when it comes out.

4 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So this -- I don't 

5 think that keeps us from closing out this item. 

6 We're still parking that time period between '63 

7 and '70, or am I incorrect in that assumption?

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'd 

9 agree with you, Josie.

10 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

11 MEMBER VALERIO: And I agree with you, 

12 Josie, as well.

13 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Jim?

14 MEMBER LOCKEY: I also agree.

15 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So when I make up 

16 my slides, which I've already started on, I'll make 

17 sure that we have that answered as well. So we 

18 agree that we can close this, and we're parking that 

19 D&D question still with the other time period. 

20 Okay. Thank you, everyone.

21 Moving onto the post-operations 

22 period.

23 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, from '78 to '84. 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And this is where the depleted uranium was being 

2 handled and the same kind of grinding operations 

3 were taking place. And what was done was a maximum 

4 surface contamination value was identified as a 

5 sort of bounding level of contamination during the 

6 operations as well as during D&D. And based on 

7 that estimation, a dose estimation was done, and 

8 that's being applied for the air concentration 

9 during that period. 

10 So that's '78 to '84, using the maximum 

11 surface contamination that was estimated from the 

12 operations. And I think we actually did have 

13 measured values from that time period, so this is 

14 not one where it was modeled. We actually had some 

15 values, and surface contamination level was used.

16 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Thank you, Joe.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: And we didn't really 

18 have any issue with that. I think that was kind 

19 of straightforward. 

20 CHAIR BEACH: Right. Any questions, 

21 anyone? 

22 I know we discussed using OTIB-70 quite 

23 extensively also. 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Any questions/comments?

2 (No audible response.)

3 CHAIR BEACH: Everybody agree with 

4 closing this item?

5 (Simultaneous speaking.)

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: I agree with it, 

7 Josie.

8 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. I believe that 

9 was an agreement.

10 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes, it was.

11 MEMBER VALERIO: I agree, Josie.

12 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: It was.

14 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So that's closed 

15 as well. And moving onto the next item, 

16 organically bound tritium operations.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this was another 

18 thing that sort of came out of the research during 

19 the SEC review, which, if you all remember the hi-lo 

20 switch plates, and there was a nice White Paper that 

21 I think NIOSH generated on that. It was activity 

22 that took place from '63 to '68. And that was a 

23 whole -- and again, the White Paper is the best 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 source of the modeling process and the calculations 

2 that were made, but I thought it was a pretty 

3 well-done paper, and I think the Work Group did at 

4 the time as well. And the value, 1.77 

5 millirem, again because of not being able to 

6 distinguish who was in the area, would be applied 

7 to all workers. And I think that value, actually 

8 -- and, Pete, correct me -- got a little more 

9 conservative. There was an initial 

10 estimate from a first version of the White Paper 

11 where it was somewhat lower, but then the second 

12 version I think was 1.77. That benefitted from, 

13 I think, additional information, better data that 

14 was collected. And that ended up being the 

15 bounding value that was identified. And 

16 certainly, it's a relatively low dose, as you would 

17 expect, with the level of tritium that was being 

18 handled on these hi-lo switch plates.

19 CHAIR BEACH: Well, and Joe, on page 41 

20 of the -- I believe I read it was 1.73, which is 

21 not much different than the 1.77 that's listed.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

23 CHAIR BEACH: So just that's just a 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 little bit of an inconsistency there. So I believe 

2 it's the 1.73, if I'm reading that correctly.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, okay. I'm 

4 looking at what we got from the White Paper.

5 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, what you had was --

6 MR. FITZGERALD: I got 1.77 from the 

7 White Paper.

8 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, and in the actual 

9 TBD, it's 1.73.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Yes.

11 CHAIR BEACH: Very small difference, 

12 but --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, okay.

14 CHAIR BEACH: -- just a note.

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe a 

16 recalculation. Okay.

17 CHAIR BEACH: So any comments on that?

18 (No audible response.)

19 CHAIR BEACH: No, hearing none, I think 

20 we can agree to close that as well.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: I agree.

22 MEMBER VALERIO: I agree.

23 MEMBER LOCKEY: I agree.
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Thank you.

2 Now D&D.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, on the next one, 

4 there was a D&D done in the main area, and 

5 basically, they brought Rockwell and outsourced 

6 that to Rockwell. And they essentially dug up part 

7 of the concrete and cleaned up an area where there 

8 had been -- operationally, there was a routine 

9 spill. 

10 And the actual Rockwell report 

11 indicated there was no personnel exposure, and they 

12 controlled it pretty thoroughly. And the -- in the 

13 report itself, there's a provision for a -- what 

14 would have been the airborne levels, and I think, 

15 again, the air sample control level that -- and this 

16 is a very low level of 1x10^(-12) microcuries per 

17 milliliter, and assuming a breathing rate and the 

18 time period of a full year. And that pretty much 

19 provides the bounding dose for anyone that would 

20 have been involved in the D&D or exposed to the 

21 D&D. And again, we don't have any issue with that. 

22 It's a relatively low dose.

23 CHAIR BEACH: I guess I wasn't clear 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 who would get this dose or who would determine who 

2 would get this dose?

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, you wouldn't be 

4 able to determine.

5 CHAIR BEACH: Right.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: I think it -- am I 

7 right, Pete, it would be applied to everyone in the 

8 area, because essentially you wouldn't be able to 

9 know who might have got a residual -- maybe breathe 

10 in residually. 

11 Because this was -- this D&D was in the 

12 middle of the operating area practically, and even 

13 though there was a lot of controls on it, you --

14 there would have been some minor perhaps airborne 

15 level. And this is calculated on what that -- it 

16 would be if you assumed the 1.135 picocuries per 

17 day ingestion rate.

18 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. And that would be 

19 assigned to everyone during that time period, the 

20 '84 to '86.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: '83 to -- let's see, 

22 '84 to '86. 

23 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Any questions or 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 comments on this item?

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad, Josie. 

3 No.

4 MEMBER VALERIO: This is Loretta, 

5 Josie. No.

6 MEMBER LOCKEY: Jim, Josie. No.

7 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Then we agree to 

8 close this item. Thank you.

9 And the next one.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, the next one 

11 was -- we've gotten into this issue, if you recall, 

12 what did workers do in terms of -- it could be an 

13 operator operating a machine, but they had 

14 separate -- a separate category of worker who 

15 actually collected shavings, for example, and 

16 disposed of those shavings in barrels.

17 And so the question was how do you 

18 evaluate their exposure? How would you assign a 

19 dose to the maintenance/housekeeping staff, the 

20 people that actually handled the uranium shavings, 

21 for example, or what not? And I think after some 

22 discussion the Work Group had agree with NIOSH's 

23 suggestion to assign the un-monitored workers a 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 value. And there's a basic value. The ones that 

2 were doing this work, assign them that value and 

3 use an exposure category 2; i.e., workers with 

4 occasional exposure. And I think that was the 

5 recommendation in the TBD.

6 Pete, can you -- or maybe, Pat, 

7 category -- exposure category 2, workers with 

8 occasional exposure, is that an apportionment 

9 value?

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Joe, that comes 

11 from -- let's see, I think that was another one of 

12 those TBD-6000 breakdowns on --

13 MR. FITZGERALD: It's sort of -- I 

14 mean, it assumes that the worker for the occasional 

15 exposure be getting a portion of the value that 

16 would be assigned to general workers that were 

17 working with the uranium. 

18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Why don't I just go to 

19 514 just so I don't misstate that? It would be 

20 easier just to be sure. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Because the -- during 

22 the discussion we certainly agreed they weren't 

23 like the operators where they were in the middle 
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of perhaps a small cloud of particulates, but 

2 nonetheless by handling the shavings and what have 

3 you they would certainly get some exposure.

4 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, it's on page 32 of 

5 78, if anyone's following along in the TBD.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I just got there.

7 CHAIR BEACH: Category 2 was GM.

8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay. So this is not 

9 like the TBD-6000 four classes of workers, but we 

10 instead fit them more into the DU coworker model. 

11 And we gave them the GM value. 

12 CHAIR BEACH: And that's the 891 

13 picocuries. Well, is that correct? Yes, that's 

14 the Category 2 worker also. 

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: And this is, like Brad 

16 was talking about earlier, also why we got

17 ourselves comfortable with the D&D of the 

18 magnesium-thorium area or of the machinery from 

19 Department 20 being clean. We said we've got this 

20 document that showed that they cleaned these 

21 machines out. And then we started to talk about 

22 the exposures of those folks that were cleaning the 

23 machines out and we got to this. And we came up 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 with a method for bounding the doses of the machine 

2 cleaners and then we felt like that was enough to 

3 say that we sufficient D&D of the area at the end 

4 of mag-thor operations.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Well, anyway, 

6 again the basis for a value that's less than the 

7 actual operator value is the fact that they did 

8 handle but weren't actually doing the machine 

9 directly. So the discussion during the Work Group 

10 sessions were how do you -- what could be assigned 

11 to these workers so that they get accredited with 

12 getting exposure but not at the operators' level, 

13 and certainly not at the general employee who might 

14 be not even in the area? Because they were 

15 directly handling the material that was coming off, 

16 the waste chips and what have you and they were 

17 putting them in barrels.

18 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, we had many 

19 discussions on how to cover these workers, and --

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

21 CHAIR BEACH: -- I thought NIOSH was 

22 very responsive in adding this section that lays 

23 it out I think --
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

2 CHAIR BEACH: -- very well.

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Because it was sort of 

4 a gap and they -- in the ER Review it was I think 

5 more -- it was better clarified that you had these 

6 classes of workers, the ones that cleaned the 

7 machines, that ones that collected the chips. I 

8 think before that it was just sort of you had 

9 operators and you had the general employee. You 

10 didn't have this sort of middle Class of workers. 

11 And I think this is a better way to identify those 

12 kinds of workers.

13 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. I do agree with 

14 that. Any reason not to close this item? Any 

15 comments or questions?

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Josie, this is Brad. 

17 I'm good with it.

18 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Thanks.

19 MEMBER VALERIO: Josie, this is 

20 Loretta. I'm good with it. 

21 MEMBER LOCKEY: And Jim's good with it, 

22 too. 

23 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Thank you. So 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that closes out all the new items that were added 

2 and we get into -- I think, Joe, you already alluded 

3 to the verification of the dosimetry, but the next 

4 sections bring in the SEC issues that we moved over 

5 and --

6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I would say there 

7 was three major areas --

8 CHAIR BEACH: Yes.

9 MR. FITZGERALD: -- and the second 

10 would be the D&D. And that --

11 CHAIR BEACH: Yes.

12 MR. FITZGERALD: -- we've already 

13 touched on that. And I think the Work Group 

14 actually had a number of discussions and agreed 

15 with in the end the -- that the D&D and the coworker 

16 was accomplished. So I don't think that's really 

17 part of this per se. It's already been addressed, 

18 but --

19 CHAIR BEACH: No.

20 MR. FITZGERALD: -- it is reflected --

21 CHAIR BEACH: Right.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: -- in the revised TBD. 

23 The other issues; and this comes more 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from the March 14th matrix which sort of is derived 

2 from the earlier matrix. We had sort of a listing 

3 of Site Profile issues that were the original Site 

4 Profile issues. And to some extent those were 

5 brought forward as -- during the course of the ER 

6 discussions, but weren't really settled because 

7 they were Site Profile issues. So this was an 

8 opportunity to sort of disposition those.

9 In any case, I'm just going to through 

10 these. Certainly item 2 from the original SEC 

11 matrix -- and the Work Group certainly determined 

12 some aspects of that were certainly Site Profile 

13 in nature. And I think the clarity that the Work 

14 Group was looking for was sort of better 

15 identifications of categories of workers for DU 

16 intakes; we just talked about that just now as a 

17 matter of fact, and values for the different 

18 categories of workers and time periods that were 

19 more specific to those kinds of workers and for 

20 those time periods. 

21 And that I think benefitted from the 

22 research where you could identify the different 

23 operations better, the potential for exposure from 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 those operations. And perhaps the grading of 

2 those exposures depending on whether they were 

3 operators or handlers or just general workers in 

4 the area, that kind of thing.

5 And I think the discussion that's in the 

6 TBD now benefitted from all that and I think we're 

7 satisfied. That original concern -- I think the 

8 biggest concern probably, and Brad will remember 

9 this, just the movement of workers. To what extent 

10 workers could move from the clean areas of the plant 

11 into these contaminated areas, to what extent they 

12 would be exposed and whether these areas were 

13 sufficiently restricted, all that. And I think 

14 certainly we spent a lot of time researching that, 

15 interviewing workers. And I think what's in the 

16 TBD now is a much clearer picture of how that took 

17 place at Kansas City.

18 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, I agree that tables 

19 5.6 and 5.7 are really clear on different job titles 

20 and what dose they'd receive.

21 So anyone have any questions on that SEC 

22 2 worker location, job locations? It covers quite 

23 a bit.
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad, Josie. 

2 I'm good with it. We --

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, we spent a lot of 

4 time.

5 CHAIR BEACH: We did. A great deal of 

6 time.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, we did.

8 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So Brad agrees to 

9 close. Loretta?

10 MR. LOCKEY: I agree. I agree also.

11 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

12 MEMBER VALERIO: I agree. I agree.

13 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So we agree that 

14 this is covered adequately and we are going to close 

15 that first item.

16 Moving onto chronic versus acute.

17 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I mean, I think 

18 this was an original issue from our review that went 

19 back probably ten years ago --

20 CHAIR BEACH: Yes.

21 MR. FITZGERALD: -- that the chronic 

22 basis for the coworker model didn't seem to jive 

23 with the -- some of the bioassay records which 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 showed excretion rates there might have been some 

2 more episodic exposures. And this predated 

3 TBD-6000 and all of that deliberation. And I think 

4 this issue has sort of caught up with -- or TBD-6000 

5 sort of caught up with this issue and provides a 

6 pretty thorough discussion of chronic versus acute 

7 and how to apply that and acknowledge that the 

8 chronic model can be effectively used in situations 

9 like this, even if you do have episodic exposures.

10 So again, I think this is a case where 

11 an original Site Profile issue raised issues which 

12 at some point the Board and NIOSH have shed more 

13 light on the subject. And I think in this case 

14 TBD-6000 provides that reference point. So we're 

15 satisfied and I think this is addressed pretty well 

16 in the Site Profile.

17 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, and I believe there 

18 was a technical call on this issue as well early 

19 on to get some clarity on how that --

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

21 CHAIR BEACH: -- was going to be done, 

22 so --

23 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and I think it 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was agreed that TBD-6000 was probably the short 

2 answer to providing that perspective.

3 CHAIR BEACH: Right. Any comments or 

4 questions?

5 (No audible response.)

6 CHAIR BEACH: I think it gives a more 

7 accurate description of how to apply dose to 

8 different workers. I think the early pattern 

9 didn't work. So I'm comfortable with closing 

10 this.

11 Brad?

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm good with it. We 

13 spent a lot of time on this and I know the rest of 

14 the Work Group knows it, too. We were -- we looked 

15 at this and I -- so I'm satisfied with what NIOSH 

16 has presented.

17 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Loretta and Jim?

18 MEMBER POSTON: Hey --

19 (Simultaneous speaking.)

20 MEMBER POSTON: Hello?

21 CHAIR BEACH: Hi, John. 

22 MEMBER POSTON: I just got out of 

23 class, sorry I am late. 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Well, glad you're 

2 here. We are on -- we're going through SC&A's memo 

3 and we are on SEC3, chronic versus acute. We're 

4 just getting that closed out. 

5 And, Jim, did I hear from you? Are you 

6 comfortable with that?

7 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes, I am.

8 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So we'll move 

9 onto SEC10, the non-penetrating dose. 

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and this again 

11 was one of the original Site Profile findings. 

12 I -- Ron Buchanan, are you on the line? 

13 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I am.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this was 

15 something that Ron focused on, and it was actually 

16 a technical call on this specific subject between 

17 Ron and NIOSH. 

18 So, Ron, if you want to just outline the 

19 original issue and how it was dispositioned?

20 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, this is Ron 

21 Buchanan, SC&A.

22 The records for the Kansas City Plant 

23 were used to do some different units. And 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sometimes we used -- they used rads and rems, but --

2 and they also used several different columns in 

3 their records. And some of these columns didn't 

4 add up, so it didn't make sense. 

5 What we clarified with NIOSH is what was 

6 actually being used in dose reconstruction? And 

7 we had them clarify that, and then they clarified 

8 it further in their revised TBD on what columns were 

9 used for what dose assignments. And we agreed that 

10 that was correct and had no further issue with it.

11 CHAIR BEACH: Ron, can you -- this is 

12 Josie. Can you -- what is AMAD? I know it's an 

13 abbreviation. What is it an --

14 DR. BUCHANAN: What was that again?

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, you're on the next 

16 issue.

17 CHAIR BEACH: Am I on the next --

18 oh --

19 (Simultaneous speaking.)

20 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, we're still 

21 on --

22 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Sorry, sorry, 

23 sorry. Okay. Yes, I'm jumping ahead here.
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's what happens 

3 when we jump ahead. We get AMAD.

4 (Laughter.)

5 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Well, I ask you 

6 that at the next one. So on non-penetrating doses. 

7 And you're right, there was a technical call on that 

8 as well. 

9 So any comments or questions on this 

10 one?

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'm 

12 good with it. I appreciate the level that they 

13 went to with this, because this is kind of an 

14 interesting one at the very beginning of it. And 

15 we've got it I think sorted out, so I'm good with 

16 it.

17 MEMBER LOCKEY: Jim. I'm good with 

18 it, too.

19 MEMBER VALERIO: This is Loretta. I'm 

20 good with it.

21 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. John?

22 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, I'm good with it. 

23 I'm okay.
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Great. So we 

2 agree that -- to close that issue as well.

3 Now we can get onto -- these are the ones 

4 that came from the original 2013 matrix.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.

6 CHAIR BEACH: There's what, three or --

7 no, there's quite a few of them. So --

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Right, and we --

9 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

10 MR. FITZGERALD: -- obviously tracked 

11 the ones that NIOSH -- that had been addressed 

12 before now. So there's a long list of them, but 

13 these are the ones that bare resolution and 

14 consideration by the Work Group.

15 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

16 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, these are the 

17 originals. The first -- the SEC-labeled ones are 

18 one from the SEC matrix.

19 CHAIR BEACH: Correct. Okay. So 

20 we're ready to move on then, I think. 

21 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, AMAD.

22 CHAIR BEACH: AMAD. Thank you.

23 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, on this 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 particular issue -- and this was the -- I guess the 

2 standard default value of five microns for the 

3 particle size. The original site -- and again, 

4 this is going back probably ten years ago, but the 

5 original finding that was in the -- our review back 

6 then was that the default value is recommended and 

7 provided for in the Site Profile, but there was very 

8 little information about the particle size and 

9 chemical form and what not of the uranium oxide 

10 powder that was being handled. And there's some 

11 question as to whether that was conservative enough 

12 or not.

13 And I think the response was in the ICRP 

14 modeling, if there's no site-specific information, 

15 the default value would be the five microns, but 

16 again I think it sort of begged the question, well, 

17 is there any way we can get site-specific 

18 information? So it was a question at the time. 

19 There was no site-specific information that was 

20 available for the Site Profile at that time. 

21 And during the research phase of the ER 

22 NIOSH clearly obtained quite a bit of information. 

23 We were able to find information that characterized 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the uranium oxide to a large degree. And a lot of 

2 that information is now in the TBD. And I went 

3 ahead and used the entire quote because I think it's 

4 very good. It provides a lot of detail about what

5 is known about the uranium oxide and provides some 

6 guidance on how to apply the assumed diameter of 

7 the material. 

8 So, and I think again I'm not going to 

9 read all the way through this; you can read it 

10 yourself, but I think that's probably one of the 

11 best descriptions I've seen on that particular 

12 subject.

13 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, I think when I read 

14 through this the only question I had is in the last 

15 paragraph it says, "In fitting bioassay data the 

16 dose reconstructor may wish to start with the one." 

17 I guess I was wondering if Pete could give us a 

18 little bit of clarity on is this going to be a 

19 professional judgment or is there going to -- is 

20 there something more specific than what -- where 

21 they would -- the dose reconstructor would start.

22 MR. DARNELL: As far as I understand 

23 when we're doing the dose reconstructions they're 
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 using a tool that pretty much calculates out what 

2 the dose is going to be.

3 CHAIR BEACH: Did you say code? 

4 MR. DARNELL: Yes --

5 CHAIR BEACH: I'm sorry. Okay. 

6 Code.

7 (Simultaneous speaking.)

8 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Thank you. 

9 MR. DARNELL: That calculates out what 

10 the dose is going to be in the most 

11 claimant-favorable way. So this adds some 

12 flexibility to look for more claimant-favorable 

13 dose or more specific dose. It has to be a best 

14 estimate. 

15 You want to correct me if that's the 

16 wrong, Jackson?

17 MR. ELLIS: What we're doing in pilots 

18 of the dose reconstructions on that is if we have 

19 evidence of one diameter or the other, then we will 

20 assess using that if the -- there's a default that 

21 we use the five micrometer. And then talking to 

22 them, trying to go through the dose 

23 reconstruction template.
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I guess the way 

2 I read it was you acknowledge that the unaltered 

3 uranium oxide certainly would be of a smaller, 

4 lesser diameter and you provide all the specs on 

5 that material because that came directly from the 

6 specification control that KCP used. But 

7 certainly in terms of the actual handling and the 

8 actual operations the default of five would be 

9 reasonable.

10 So you're making a distinction between 

11 unaltered, just received powder versus the 

12 actual -- when they actually used the powder to make 

13 forms, to make -- to grind those forms. And once 

14 the forms were completed and they were actually 

15 being handled as forms, the five would be fine. 

16 It's the unaltered I think, the acknowledgment of 

17 having to use a -- well, one micron, it's -- in the 

18 specs it's 1.175 microns. So that to me is the 

19 biggest difference for me.

20 MR. ELLIS: Well, we have -- if we have 

21 bioassay data to assess, then we can compare the 

22 1.175 with the five micrometers.

23 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ELLIS: With the coworker doses 

2 then we are assessing the five micron diameter. 

3 The coworker study was performed with that 

4 diameter.

5 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and I think our 

6 original suggestion was you had some need to look 

7 at types M and S in terms of solubility and whether 

8 you're using one or five microns and use the dose --

9 the assumptions that would give you the highest 

10 dose, the bounding dose. And I think pretty much 

11 that's what you have. I mean, it seems like the 

12 last sentence in particular pretty much tracks with 

13 what our finding was back in -- I think it was 2007. 

14 CHAIR BEACH: All right. So, Jackson;

15 this is Josie again, AMAD, what does that stand for?

16 MR. ELLIS: I can tell you. Activity 

17 median aerodynamic diameter.

18 CHAIR BEACH: Can you say it again? 

19 Air --

20 MR. ELLIS: Activity median 

21 aerodynamic diameter. And basically particles 

22 don't have standard sizes --

23 CHAIR BEACH: Right.
62 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ELLIS: -- so what they do is they 

2 look at the settling velocity of these particles 

3 and then they ascribe them to spheres. So one 

4 micron AMAD would be a particle that -- with a one 

5 micron diameter that settles at that rate. 

6 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. That's helpful. 

7 Thanks. 

8 Any other comments or questions on this 

9 particular finding and resolution?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'm 

11 good with it.

12 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Comfortable with 

13 closing. And -- 

14 MEMBER POSTON: No problems.

15 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. John said yes. 

16 Loretta?

17 MEMBER LOCKEY: Jim -- 

18 MEMBER VALERIO: Yes.

19 CHAIR BEACH: Jim?

20 MEMBER LOCKEY: Jim, yes. 

21 CHAIR BEACH: Yes? Okay. So we agree 

22 that this has been -- the resolution is good and 

23 we will close that one. 
63 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The next item is bioassay data.

2 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and I think 

3 that's been pretty much vetted during the Work 

4 Group sessions -- 

5 CHAIR BEACH: Yes.

6 MR. FITZGERALD: -- but again, our 

7 original Site Profile question was that the 

8 bioassay data has not been reviewed in terms of 

9 completeness. And that's essentially what the 

10 V&V, the validation and verification that the NIOSH 

11 accomplished last year did.

12 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, and that's covered 

13 on page 19 of the TBD.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

15 CHAIR BEACH: Yes. Okay. I'm 

16 comfortable with closing that. Any other 

17 disagreements with closing the bioassay data?

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: No disagreement.

19 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

20 MEMBER VALERIO: I'm good.

21 MEMBER POSTON: Good.

22 MEMBER LOCKEY: Good.

23 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Thank you.
64 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now we'll look at admin codes. I know 

2 we've discussed that quite a bit also. 

3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, the original 

4 system that categorized the workers in terms of how 

5 the coworker model would be applied we thought 

6 would result in misassignments. And I think with 

7 the revised coworker model and the better 

8 information regarding worker categories that's 

9 been resolved. 

10 This sort of fits hand in hand with the 

11 question of what worker categories can you identify 

12 at Kansas City and how can you apply a coworker 

13 model to that to then adequately -- so we've already 

14 discussed the additional categories and 

15 understanding of the operations and the revised 

16 coworker model, so I think that in our view -- and 

17 I think tables 5.6 and 5.7 provides a lot more 

18 detail in that regard. We feel satisfied.

19 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Any comments or 

20 questions on that?

21 (No response.)

22 CHAIR BEACH: And to add to that, the 

23 two tables and then the -- talking about the 
65 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 un-monitored workers in 5.1.4, that -- I'm 

2 comfortable and I believe that I -- we can close 

3 that. Any disagreements?

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: No. Josie, this is 

5 Brad. And I also remember when we got into this, 

6 talking about this was people changing their job 

7 codes in the middle of it, seeing how that would 

8 be impacted. And they brought a level of comfort 

9 to me on that. 

10 CHAIR BEACH: Right.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: So I'm good with 

12 closing this.

13 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Thank you.

14 MR. LOCKEY: I'm good with it.

15 MEMBER VALERIO: I'm good with it.

16 MEMBER POSTON: Okay. I'm okay. 

17 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Great. And the 

18 next one, photon calibration.

19 MR. FITZGERALD: Ron, was that the one 

20 you addressed? I'm trying to remember now.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

22 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Maybe you can 

23 just out line that.
66 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, that was a question 

2 on how the shallow dose would be assigned. And 

3 also there was a need for some shallow dose in the 

4 coworker model. So they did revise the TBD to show 

5 coworkers' shallow dose on pages 76 and 77, and also 

6 a -- instead of using an abbreviated list of the 

7 dose conversion factors, they refer the dose 

8 reconstructor to the IG-001 guide, which lists a 

9 complete list of those. 

10 And also, the shallow dose will be 

11 considered as less than 30 keV photons. For most 

12 applications the electron dose will be considered 

13 for certain tissues if it would produce a higher 

14 dose. But they have included a less than 30 keV 

15 photon as a general option because that usually 

16 produces the most dose. 

17 And so we find that that has been 

18 clarified and corrected or expanded upon, and so 

19 we find that issue has been addressed.

20 CHAIR BEACH: Ron, I read somewhere, 

21 and I cannot find it now, of asking to get more 

22 included in the list, a complete list. Has that 

23 been -- is that done with the IG-001?
67 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. Instead of using 

2 the abbreviated list in the TBD.

3 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: They just deleted that 

5 and said use the one in IG-001.

6 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. So then that's 

7 not something we need to carry on for the next TBD? 

8 That has been -- 

9 DR. BUCHANAN: That's been done.

10 CHAIR BEACH: -- satisfied? Okay.

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

12 CHAIR BEACH: I just could not pinpoint 

13 where I had originally read that. Thank you.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

15 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Questions on this 

16 one? 

17 (No audible response.)

18 CHAIR BEACH: Are we in agreement that 

19 it can be closed?

20 MEMBER LOCKEY: I'm in agreement.

21 MEMBER VALERIO: Yes.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm good with it, 

23 Josie.
68 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. And, John, as 

2 well?

3 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

4 CHAIR BEACH: So we're all in agreement 

5 to close this item. Thank you.

6 Next one. We've talked about 

7 mag-thorium. This is -- 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, this was an 

9 original Site Profile issue, but we certainly have 

10 covered this in detail during the ER Review. And 

11 the issues at that time were just simply a better 

12 basis for the exposure that was being used, the one 

13 from 1970 and pretty much the bounding dose used 

14 for the operational periods. And so we're -- 

15 again, we're good with what's in the Site Profile. 

16 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. Thank you. 

17 Any other comments or questions on this 

18 one? 

19 (No response.)

20 CHAIR BEACH: Everybody agree that we

21 can close this as well?

22 MEMBER VALERIO: Yes.

23 MEMBER CLAWSON: I agree.
69 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

2 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

3 CHAIR BEACH: That concludes all of our 

4 Site Profile issues. I have to say this went very 

5 well. 

6 I really appreciate, Pete, for your -- 

7 you and your team's responsiveness on all the 

8 issues and pulling all the issues together. We had 

9 some very lengthy discussions and I think this went 

10 very well in getting all of those issues 

11 documented, and you guys were very responsive in 

12 rewriting the TBD. 

13 So are there any additional items?

14 Additional Items 

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Josie, this is Brad. 

16 I've just got one, and I know that this is just a 

17 personal pet peeve with me. If you remember, we 

18 talked earlier about the fire that they had in the 

19 uranium. If we ever come across anything; and I'm 

20 just asking Pete or Pat, that -- you've already told 

21 me that you would do this, but I just wanted to 

22 remind you. The uranium fire earlier in the year 

23 and Rockwell's involvement in it, if we ever come 
70 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 across anything like that, I'd sure like to -- I'd 

2 just like to be able to look at it, because it was 

3 kind of an interesting aspect.

4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, for awhile 

5 there, Brad; this is Pat, I was taken aback by your 

6 mentioning these fires and I wasn't able to find 

7 them, the ones that you were talking about. We 

8 kept saying, no, we didn't see anything about a big 

9 fire. But toward the end there; and we documented 

10 this in the SEC issues matrix, we did find a 

11 significant fire. 

12 And they had a robust response where 

13 they went onto the roof even and did samples up at 

14 the ventilation that exhausted the stack and 

15 everything, and they did urinalysis on everybody. 

16 But there was no Rockwell involvement in the 

17 cleanup of that, so -- 

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. And if you 

19 remember right, that was a discussion from one of 

20 the machinists -- 

21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- that when he 

23 left -- that's where I'm leaving it at. I'm not -- 
71 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I'm just saying if we run across something, for my 

2 own knowledge, I'd just -- because it was 

3 interesting to me. If you remember me discussing 

4 this, how -- we asked how it got cleaned up and the 

5 individual without a hesitation says we did nothing 

6 with it. Rockwell came in. They cleaned it all 

7 up. And it seemed like there was something set up 

8 with Rockwell International to take care of issues 

9 like this. 

10 So if we just ever run across something 

11 like that -- I know I'm always looking for some of 

12 these little stragglers to bring to a resolution. 

13 I'm not -- that's all I'm asking is if we find 

14 something just to help satisfy me.

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Oh, yes, Brad, I'll 

16 make a note that if I ever see anything about a 

17 Rockwell cleanup of a fire there, that you'll be 

18 notified.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: I appreciate that. 

20 Thank you.

21 CHAIR BEACH: And then we have the D&D 

22 question. Pete, you were going to send something 

23 to clarify that to -- or -- and I'm sorry, Pete was 
72 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to send it out to us.

2 MEMBER McCLOSKEY: I'm going to look 

3 for it and give it -- 

4 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

5 MEMBER McCLOSKEY: -- to Pete and he's 

6 going to distribute it.

7 CHAIR BEACH: Alright. So any 

8 other -- I think that was the last thing that we 

9 had.

10 Moving forward, I'm going to put 

11 together the -- finish putting together the slides, 

12 send them to Joe to vet for me and then send them 

13 out to the Work Group and Ted. 

14 Does that sound like a reasonable path 

15 forward, Ted?

16 MR. KATZ: That sounds great.

17 CHAIR BEACH: Okay. 

18 MR. DARNELL: Josie, are you going to 

19 want a presentation from NIOSH and SC&A also, 

20 or -- 

21 Path Forward for Issue Resolution or 

22 Presentation to Board 

23 CHAIR BEACH: Well, I was just going to 
73 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ask Ted for background documents. I know there's 

2 a lot of background documents. Will you send those 

3 out to the Board or -- 

4 MR. KATZ: So this is Ted. So I can 

5 share with the Board the updated Site Profile; I'll 

6 do that, and the SC&A memo, the more -- most recent 

7 one, to review. But otherwise, I think your 

8 presentation suffices, Josie. I don't think you 

9 really need another presentation from NIOSH on 

10 this.

11 CHAIR BEACH: No. No, I would -- 

12 MR. KATZ: The Work Group's now closing 

13 out its review.

14 CHAIR BEACH: Yes. No, no, I was going 

15 to say that I felt that I could go ahead and close 

16 out these issues. And then if Joe was hand and 

17 anybody else to answer any questions that may 

18 arise, then I'm comfortable with just doing the 

19 presentation, to answer Pete.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, absolutely. And Joe 

21 I'm sure will be on hand. 

22 And I just want to call out Joe. I 

23 mean, I think you did an excellent job of running 
74 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 through the issues in a way that everybody can 

2 follow and understand from the transcript, so I 

3 really appreciate that.

4 CHAIR BEACH: Yes, I do, too. And I 

5 think, if there's nothing else, we can conclude 

6 this meeting.

7 MR. KATZ: Yes.

8 CHAIR BEACH: Okay.

9 MR. DARNELL: Just one thing I wanted 

10 to let Brad know, that when NIOSH is doing record 

11 searches at whatever site, wherever you are in the 

12 country, and we do run across things from different 

13 sites. Each individual site's information is 

14 captured and is added back in. So if we come up 

15 with something that's pertinent to Kansas City at 

16 some place else that we haven't looked yet or in 

17 any future document captures, we'll be collecting 

18 that data.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: And, Pete, this is 

20 Brad. I appreciate that and I do understand. And 

21 I'd like to take the opportunity to tell NIOSH and 

22 SC&A that it's been a pleasure working on this site. 

23 And we've been taking on some very complicated 
75 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 problems and I feel that we've addressed them in 

2 a very good manner and I feel very good about what 

3 we've accomplished here. 

4 I just -- me and Pat have kind of 

5 discussed this whole thing back and forth, and I 

6 just wanted to keep him a little bit prodded on that 

7 and go from there. But I do appreciate everything 

8 that everybody's put forth on this and I feel that 

9 we've come up with a very good Site Profile and 

10 stuff, so thank you.

11 CHAIR BEACH: I agree. And so, Joe, 

12 you should be seeing my slides by the first of next 

13 week.

14 MR. FITZGERALD: Alrighty.

15 CHAIR BEACH: Okay? Thank you, 

16 everyone. Appreciate your time.

17 Adjourn 

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, thank you, everyone. 

19 Have a good rest of the week and weekend.

20 CHAIR BEACH: Thanks.

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

22 went off the record at 11:26 a.m.)

23