NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

1

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 PINELLAS

+ + + + +

MONDAY

NOVEMBER 19, 2012

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened 

telephonically at 11:00 a.m., Eastern Standard 

Time, Phillip Schofield, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

PHILLIP SCHOFIELD, Chairman

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

LORETTA R. VALERIO, Member
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

BOB BARTON, SC&A

MEL CHEW, ORAU Team

PETE DARNELL, DCAS

BRIAN GLECKLER, ORAU Team

DONNA HAND

KARIN JESSEN, ORAU Team

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

ROBERT MORRIS, ORAU Team

JIM NETON, DCAS 

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

ABE ZEITOUN, SC&A
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

3

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

PAGE

Welcome and Roll-Call/Introductions........ 4 

Work Group Discussion

Status Update from WG Meeting

October 13, 2011 ..................... 8 

Summary - Site Interviews

January 2012 (SC&A, DCAS) ............ 9 

Technical Issues Resolution............... 12

Adjourn................................... 77
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

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

2 (11:00 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. Very good. It's 

4 11:00 a.m., it's start time. This is the 

5 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

6 Pinellas Work Group. And we will get started 

7 with roll call.

8 We're speaking about a specific 

9 site, so for all Agency-related and Board10 related officials, please speak to conflict of 

11 interest as well. And we will get going. So 

12 roll call, starting with our Board Members, 

13 with the Chair.

14 (Roll call.)

15 MR. KATZ: Very good. That 

16 completes roll call. Let me just remind 

17 everyone on the lines to please mute your 

18 phone except when you're addressing the group.

19 Press *6 is you don't have a mute 

20 button to mute your phone. Press *6 again to 

21 take your phone off of mute. Please don't put 

22 the phone call on hold at any point. But hang 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

5

1 up and dial back in if you need to go for a 

2 piece.

3 And let me also note for 

4 everybody, the agenda for the meeting should 

5 be posted on the Advisory Board under the, on 

6 the NIOSH website under the Advisory Board 

7 section, under meetings for today's date.

8 And there may now be a White Paper 

9 also posted there from SC&A. And it's also 

10 been distributed by other means this morning. 

11 And, Phil, it's your agenda. Phil, you might 

12 be on mute.

13 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: There's been, 

14 NIOSH did a substantial re-write of a lot of 

15 the Technical Basis Documents. And we had 

16 some on-site interviews with personnel earlier 

17 this spring, with site experts, to try and 

18 flesh out some of the questions we had.

19 And I do appreciate all the work 

20 that Abe and everybody, and John and Pete, and 

21 have all put into this, and Brian. So I guess 

22 we'll go ahead and start with the kind of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

6 1 summary, since John did the summary there of 

2 the site interviews, if that's okay with John.

3 MR. STIVER: Okay. That's fine 

4 with me. My voice is almost shot here. I'm 

5 going to try to parse my words very carefully. 

6 We did the site interviews following the 

7 meeting back in October, where NIOSH presented 

8 the revisions to the TBD, very extensive 

9 revisions.

10 And we had some ongoing issues 

11 from our 2006 review of the original TBDs, 

12 which we were tasked to carry through. I 

13 believe there's seven of them listed in the 

14 paper I sent around to everybody.

15 And to help resolve some of these 

16 we were also tasked to go do some site 

17 interviews at, down in the Pinellas area, 

18 which we did in late January of this year. We 

19 had originally planned to interview 13 

20 individuals.

21 We were able to interview 12 of 

22 them. And that went very, very well. We were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

7

1 able to get a lot of useful information. I 

2 listed here, that was Phil, myself, Abe and 

3 Peter.

4 But I forgot to mention also 

5 Dennis Vernon from DOE. And without him I 

6 don't think this whole thing could have 

7 happened. He was very instrumental in making, 

8 taking care of all the logistical aspects.

9 We are now in the place where we 

10 received the comments, the interview 

11 summaries, back from the respective 

12 interviewees. They are now in the position, 

13 through one DOE review, almost finished.

14 I've got two more to go back 

15 through and make sure that all the details are 

16 correct. And after that they're going to go 

17 back to Dennis, and then be distributed out to 

18 the various interviewees.

19 This process has taken a lot 

20 longer than we had originally anticipated. 

21 Back when Kathy DeMers was kind of the force 

22 of nature behind all things related to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

8 1 outreach, she got around the whole show.

2 And this system that we had worked 

3 pretty well, that as a result of mainly 

4 Pinellas and some other things, that we've 

5 actually proposed some changes to the work 

6 procedure tab that we hope will kind of 

7 streamline the process.

8 But anyway, I think we're in a 

9 place now that I think, probably by virtue of 

10 the interviews and the information we 

11 discovered, to where we can close out, or be 

12 very close to resolving most of these seven 

13 issues.

14 Now the first one, this is Issue 

15 1. And this is the review of the documents 

16 that were in the summary of data capture 

17 searches. This is in a whole compendium of 

18 references that NIOSH had put together 

19 originally for their, the first round of TBD 

20 reviews.

21 And we had come up with a finding 

22 back, you know, and remember this is a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

9 1 snapshot in time from six years ago, when we 

2 were kind of under the impression that there 

3 was a lot of this data coming from 1980 and 

4 beyond.

5 And we're going to be stuck with 

6 this, or we're going to have to deal with this 

7 situation we've had in the past, where you 

8 have to back-extrapolate your earlier years 

9 because of the paucity of data in those years.

10 And so we're kind of concerned 

11 that the coworker model might not adequately 

12 represent exposures that might have taken 

13 place in that 1957 to 1979 time frame.

14 But since the October meeting I 

15 went back to TBD-6, Appendix B, which is the 

16 NIOSH coworker model. And actually I believe 

17 it's on Page 54 of that model.

18 I don't know if anybody has that 

19 up right now, from TBD-6, Table B-1. And this 

20 is a very nice summary presentation. This is 

21 the numbers of monitored personnel, and doses 

22 are binned by those greater than 100 and those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

10 1 greater than 20, from 1957 up through 1994.

2 And when you look at this data 

3 set, it does not look like there is a paucity 

4 of data pre-1980 at all. If anything, I think 

5 in 1957 and 1958 for only 71 and 142.

6 But beyond that it kind of 

7 stabilizes at around 250, then about 350 

8 personnel, for a total of roughly around 1500. 

9 About a fifth of them were monitored. And 

10 the way this model is set up is kind of 

11 interesting.

12 It's -- rather than as we would 

13 have expected, you know, back in this historic 

14 time frame, we'd have thought that we'd try 

15 to, you know, have the granularity to assign 

16 doses by year, or whatever.

17 But due to the uncertainties and 

18 involved in doing that, and, you know, the 

19 limitations in those earlier years -- like 

20 NIOSH, they just created a distribution for 

21 all the entire time period. And this is a 

22 distribution of whole body dose.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

11 1 It's actually a mixture of 

2 external photon dose, neutron dose, and also 

3 tritium dose. I believe Brian can correct me 

4 if I'm wrong. But the interpretation I had 

5 was that it really was possible to tease out 

6 the various components.

7 MR. GLECKLER: That's correct.

8 MR. STIVER: And so this is a 

9 distribution of whole body doses, and picked 

10 off the 95th percentile. And basically that's 

11 going to get, all unmonitored workers are 

12 going to be assigned this 95th percentile 

13 coworker dose.

14 And when you look at the entire 

15 distribution you really would have to -- if 

16 you have uncertainty, it would be introduced 

17 by adding a few extra sets of data in 

18 particular years that are kind of washed out. 

19 Because, to have an impact on the 

20 95th percentile, you'd have to have a sea 

21 change in the exposure potential compared to 

22 what we know was actually existing at that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

12 1 point.

2 And so at this point, I don't 

3 think there's really a lot to be gained by 

4 running this thing to ground and checking 

5 every reference that was put in place. I 

6 think NIOSH has done a commendable job.

7 They've added a lot of new 

8 references for the descriptions we've seen. 

9 They seem to be appropriate and adequate. And 

10 based on the new approach for the coworker 

11 model, I just don't see that this is really a 

12 pertinent issue at this point in time. 

13 Anybody else would like to weigh in?

14 MR. DARNELL: Yes. This is Pete 

15 Darnell. I agree.

16 MR. STIVER: Okay. Then if nobody 

17 has any objections, I think we can close out 

18 that issue.

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. So 

20 let's move on to Issue Number 2 there.

21 MR. STIVER: Give me a second to 

22 catch my breath.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

13 1 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Sorry. 

2 Jumping the gun.

3 MR. STIVER: Okay, this is John. 

4 I'm back. The second issue is related to the 

5 Mound or the stable metal tritides intakes. 

6 And we know this is, you know, by virtue of 

7 the manufacturing processes that were going 

8 on, basically building neutron tubes, where 

9 you had these targets that would have a metal 

10 film vapor deposited on to the targets. And 

11 then --

12 MR. DARNELL: John. This is Pete.

13 MR. STIVER: Yes.

14 MR. DARNELL: We don't need to 

15 discuss the process.

16 MR. STIVER: Right, right. But 

17 the model that NIOSH had put forward was based 

18 on the earliest iteration of the Mound 

19 tritides model, which was, I believe, released 

20 shortly after our October 2011 meeting.

21 Since that time, that model has 

22 undergone, there have been many White Paper 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

14 1 exchanges and Work Group meetings. And that 

2 basically resulted in the refined model that 

3 is actually going to be used for dose 

4 reconstruction at Mound. And for which the 

5 Board found that it was scientifically sound 

6 and claimant-favorable.

7 And so we have the situation again 

8 where there is a snapshot in time. You know, 

9 the paradigm has kind of shifted since that 

10 original review and since the meeting in 

11 October.

12 SC&A, we believe that that is a 

13 good model, that Mound model. Its 

14 refinements, the parameter values that were 

15 selected, such as the resuspension factor of 

16 five times ten to the minus five per year from 

17 NUREG/CR-5512. And some other aspects that 

18 are covered in extreme detail in our review 

19 and the various exchanges.

20 The only fly in the ointment that 

21 I see at this point is that we have not yet 

22 reviewed the data, the GE reports from 1967 to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

15 1 1973, the health physics reports. Basically, 

2 these are the swipe data that were used to 

3 ascertain which were the -- and in this case I 

4 believe NIOSH is planning to use the highest 

5 value that we found, which was, I believe, in 

6 1970, whereas the Mound model used the 95th 

7 percentile on a yearly basis.

8 The Mound model had a huge amount 

9 of data. I believe it was like 50,000 or 

10 60,000 individual data sets, data swipes, 

11 samples that were combined over a period of 

12 approximately 20 years.

13 And Bob Barton did a yeoman's job 

14 of reviewing that data and analyzing it. I 

15 would say that before I would be comfortable 

16 signing off on the use of this model, we would 

17 like to look at that data set and do kind of a 

18 similar completeness evaluation, like we did 

19 for Mound.

20 I think the model is fine. But 

21 like with any model, you know, the quality of 

22 the data that's going into it is really going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

16 1 to be the determinant here.

2 DR. NETON: John, this is Jim 

3 Neton. Are you finished?

4 MR. STIVER: Yes, I am.

5 DR. NETON: I've taken a look at 

6 what we're doing for Pinellas for tritides. 

7 And I had to refresh my memory. And in doing 

8 this I've noticed that there's a couple of 

9 things that NIOSH probably needs to do before 

10 you guys would review this.

11 As you pointed out there is a 

12 difference in the way the Mound model works, 

13 versus what's being done at Pinellas. And 

14 most notably that's the resuspension factor.

15 Pinellas uses a one times ten to 

16 the minus sixth per year, as opposed to five 

17 times ten to the minus fifth, as used in 

18 Mound.

19 And also, we're using in Pinellas 

20 the highest value, that you correctly pointed 

21 out, that was identified through the 1970 time 

22 frame. It's much higher, by an order of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

17 1 magnitude or more, than what was observed over 

2 the entire period.

3 And so I'm wondering if we 

4 shouldn't go back and re-look at those data to 

5 see how this model plays out in light of what 

6 was at Mound. And in particular, you know, 

7 the mix of different forms of stable metal 

8 tritides or tritides themselves that may have 

9 been there.

10 And finally, I have picked up on 

11 an error in this model that we've identified 

12 using TIB-9 to calculate ingestion intakes. I 

13 don't know if you were involved in the 

14 conversation we had on the TIB-9 issue at the 

15 Subcommittee meeting last week or so ago.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, yes. I was 

17 there on that one.

18 DR. NETON: And it turns out that 

19 what we were doing for ingestion intakes, in 

20 some cases, and it turns out this is also the 

21 case in Pinellas, is incorrect.

22 We took the surface contamination 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

18 1 of ten to the eighth, I think, DPM per square 

2 meter. And calculated an airborne 

3 concentration of 440 DPM per cubic meter. And 

4 then we said ingestion will be 20 percent of 

5 that value on a daily basis.

6 That's the TIB-9 approach. But 

7 the fact is that you can't use a resuspension 

8 factor to come out with a daily ingestion 

9 intake. It's just not appropriate.

10 So at a minimum, the inhalation or 

11 ingestion intakes are going to have to be 

12 revised for Pinellas, along with a number of 

13 other TBDs.

14 But so I think it behooves us to 

15 take a look at this, and fix at a minimum that 

16 issue. And then maybe do a review of the 

17 model that we use for inhalation, in light of 

18 what we've done in Mound.

19 MR. STIVER: This is John. That 

20 would be perfectly fine with us.

21 DR. NETON: I don't think it makes 

22 sense for you guys to embark on a review at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

19 1 this point, when we know at least we have one 

2 issue.

3 MR. STIVER: Right. Yes, I would 

4 agree. Make sure that you have the definite 

5 latest and greatest version before we take a 

6 look at it.

7 DR. NETON: Yes. And as you said, 

8 a lot of thinking has gone on related to 

9 stable metal tritides and exposures. And I'd 

10 like to verify that what we did at Mound is 

11 either appropriate or not at Pinellas. And if 

12 not, you know, look at what we've done and see 

13 if it still holds water.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Hey, Jim, this is 

15 Brad Clawson.

16 DR. NETON: Yes.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: What type of a 

18 time frame are we looking at for you guys to 

19 kind of go through this and revise?

20 DR. NETON: I just discovered this 

21 yesterday, I haven't really had much time to 

22 think about it, Brad. But --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

20 1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, and I 

2 understand that, Jim. I'm not trying to put 

3 you into a corner. It's just that Pinellas 

4 has gone on for so long, I just, you know, I 

5 didn't want to embark on another --

6 DR. NETON: I don't think this is 

7 going to be a major effort, to be honest. The 

8 fixing of the TIB-9 approach for ingestion is 

9 a simple fix. It really comes down to whether 

10 we use one times ten to the minus six per 

11 meter or something else.

12 And do we use the highest surface 

13 contamination level ever measured over a 15 or 

14 so year period? Those are the two things I 

15 really want to look at. I don't think it will 

16 take a long time.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I just, I 

18 was just trying to get a feel for it.

19 DR. NETON: I don't, you know, I 

20 don't control the resources at this point. So 

21 I can't tell you that. But we could get you 

22 an estimate, yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

21 1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well just, you 

2 know, just so the Work Group kind of knew what 

3 we were working toward and stuff. It's just -

4 - 

5 DR. NETON: This is not like the 

6 capture or anything like that. It's not going 

7 out for additional information. It's just 

8 simply looking at the data we have and trying 

9 to make the most sense of it in light of what 

10 we did at Mound.

11 DR. MAURO: Jim, this is John 

12 Mauro. I have just a couple of suggestions 

13 that might be helpful, since you'll be, you 

14 know, moving into your data.

15 As John had pointed out before, 

16 one of the areas that we would, I guess, 

17 eventually look at is data gap analysis 

18 regarding the completeness of your data set, 

19 the swipe data. As we did, as Bob Barton did, 

20 when we reviewed your Mound data set.

21 That was critical, making sure 

22 that you had -- and you had an abundance of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

22 1 data. While you're in that process, the 

2 degree to which you could put together some 

3 metrics showing places where there may have 

4 been some gaps, if there were any, and how to 

5 deal with those gaps.

6 This would help to complete the 

7 story, if you haven't done that already. You 

8 may have done that already. So as part of 

9 your revisit of it, that might be helpful.

10 The other suggestion has to do 

11 with -- I know we're talking about tritides 

12 and resuspension. I seem to recall that 

13 tritiated water -- now changing subjects on 

14 you a little bit -- in some venues, and it may 

15 have not been this one, the resuspension 

16 approach, whether it's ten to the minus six, 

17 or five times ten to the minus five per meter 

18 was applied to tritiated water during the 

19 residual period, which seemed to be a strange 

20 thing to do.

21 And I'm not sure if that was done 

22 here. If it hasn't been, disregard the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

23 1 comment. But if it was, that may be another 

2 subject that's of interest, because of the 

3 mechanics involved.

4 DR. NETON: You're saying that we 

5 used a resuspension factor for treated water 

6 in the residual period?

7 DR. MAURO: I'm not -- I have to 

8 apologize. I'm not sure. I did come across 

9 that in one of the reviews I've done recently. 

10 And I'm not sure the degree to which you 

11 might have done that here.

12 You may not have, and then just 

13 disregard this comment. It's just something 

14 that was on my mind that I thought perhaps was 

15 done here. If not, then disregard the 

16 comment.

17 DR. NETON: Okay. We'll take a 

18 look at it, John.

19 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Jim, I got a 

20 quick question. This is Phil. On the swipe 

21 data, is that, those swipes like from the 

22 daily RTG swipes? Or are these incident-
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

24 1 driven swipes to get that number, 400?

2 DR. NETON: You know, I've not 

3 been involved with this intimately. But my 

4 recollection was that it was routine 

5 contamination surveys, not just incidents.

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay.

7 DR. NETON: I'm trying to recall. 

8 They had a limit that they considered to be, 

9 you know, their maximum allowable surface 

10 contamination levels. And then they would 

11 clean up as they saw things go above that, to 

12 my recollection.

13 MR. BARTON: If I could make a 

14 comment here? This is Bob Barton with SC&A. 

15 This kind of goes along with John Mauro's 

16 first comment. To do a completeness analysis 

17 it doesn't necessarily -- the actual model 

18 doesn't necessarily have to be perfect.

19 Because as Jim Neton said, we're 

20 not going to go out and get any more data. 

21 The data's not going to change. So if we kind 

22 of wanted to move this along quickly, we could 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

25 1 review the model solely on its base data, and 

2 not look at assumptions like the resuspension 

3 factor and all that stuff that can be 

4 discussed and, you know, done later on down 

5 the line.

6 But we can just take a look and 

7 see are the gaps in the data, you know, is 

8 there a reason to think that if there are gaps 

9 that these might have had significantly higher 

10 results, or anything like that.

11 So, I mean, we could still almost 

12 work in tandem, where NIOSH is revising the 

13 implementation of the model, where we just, 

14 SC&A just solely looks at the data from a 

15 completeness perspective.

16 DR. NETON: I'm totally okay with 

17 that. This is Jim Neton.

18 MR. STIVER: Yes. This is John 

19 Stiver. I was hoping somebody would say that 

20 and save me the trouble of having to do it.

21 DR. NETON: And it's something 

22 that you would have been doing anyways. And 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

26 1 you're right. There are two compartmentalized 

2 pieces of work. I mean, neither one relies on 

3 the other one for completion. So yes, I think 

4 it makes sense to me.

5 MR. STIVER: Okay, Ted. So then I 

6 would take the lead to have the okay to go 

7 ahead and proceed with a completeness 

8 analysis.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes. Thanks, John. 

10 And then, Jim, if you would just, at whatever 

11 point you sort out how long it will take you, 

12 a rough guess for when you'll be done with 

13 considering the application of the mode or the 

14 design of it. If you just send it out to the 

15 whole Work Group so they know timing for that, 

16 that would be great.

17 DR. NETON: Yes. I'll do that.

18 MR. KATZ: And then when we have 

19 that in hand, John, you can then take it up 

20 as, and look at the final product from NIOSH. 

21 Okay?

22 MR. STIVER: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

27 1 MR. KATZ: Okay.

2 MR. STIVER: I guess we can move 

3 on to Issue 3. This has been resolved. This 

4 was a matter of removing some verbiage 

5 regarding plutonium in the TBD-5.

6 Issue Number 4, revisit 

7 discussions that resulted from our White Paper 

8 review of plutonium bioassay data. And this 

9 is really to confirm that they were 

10 essentially all null results.

11 And this is another thing that 

12 kind of, we were able to get a much better 

13 understanding of at the interviews. We 

14 happened to interview a particular individual 

15 who was very knowledgeable in destructive 

16 testing of RTGs, including quite a bit of 

17 classified information about that.

18 And he was able to indicate that 

19 there is a handful of people, probably less 

20 than ten, the crew from the RADs health and 

21 safety and then his group, who would have had 

22 by far the highest exposure potential to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

28 1 plutonium of anybody in that whole site for 

2 any period of time.

3 And there were him and one of the 

4 other interviewees indicated that they could 

5 get that data for us, the bioassay data. And 

6 then we would be able to take a look at that.

7 And then that would provide the 

8 confirmation that indeed we can put this to 

9 rest. And so we would like to follow through 

10 on that and get that data, and then take a 

11 look at it.

12 MR. DARNELL: John, this is Pete 

13 Darnell. I'm looking at my notes right now 

14 from this set of interviews. And what I had 

15 written down is that they didn't actually 

16 destructively test the Pu source. They did 

17 destructive testing on the RTG, but not the 

18 Pu.

19 MR. STIVER: Okay. Well my 

20 understanding and in my notes was that they 

21 actually did destructively test when the 

22 source was intact. And then that would be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

29 1 something that we would want to follow through 

2 on and to get confirmation from the 

3 interviewee.

4 But in any case, I think that we 

5 should follow up on that and see if we can get 

6 a hold of that data. Certainly, if we can 

7 identify that this is a subset of highest 

8 exposure potential, that's going to pretty 

9 much put this one to rest.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: So John, this is 

11 Brad Clawson. We don't have that data yet? 

12 They were going to provide it to you?

13 MR. STIVER: No. We don't have it 

14 yet. In light of what Peter just said, the 

15 fact that we have conflicting notes, I think 

16 we should get confirmation from that 

17 interviewee regarding this.

18 This is going to be a classified 

19 thing. Then go into how we might think about 

20 doing that in a reasonable amount of time.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, when we 

22 were at Sandia we talked to an individual 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

30 1 there too who was talking about the non2 destructive process and the destructive 

3 process for some of those. Yes, so that would 

4 be very good.

5 I was just wondering where all are 

6 we going to be able to get this information? 

7 Is it going to be readily accessible? Or this 

8 going to be a Easter egg hunt?

9 MR. STIVER: According to the two 

10 interviewees, it was readily available.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

12 MR. STIVER: Okay.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: John, this is 

15 Phil. I'm going by memory on some of the 

16 interview stuff. But if I remember right, the 

17 RTGs were not actually penetrated. If they 

18 were, that's a new ball game there.

19 MR. STIVER: Yes. Okay. Well, I 

20 think we're going to have to follow up with 

21 that interviewee, and get that one.

22 MR. ZEITOUN: John, this is Abe. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

31 1 I remember this question was asked, as you 

2 recall, Phil and I. And nobody confirmed any 

3 of that stuff. So I think we are -- it's a 

4 benign issue right now.

5 MR. STIVER: Okay.

6 MR. ZEITOUN: I think.

7 MR. STIVER: Okay. I would still 

8 feel a lot more comfortable if we could get 

9 confirmation from that particular person.

10 MR. ZEITOUN: Sure, sure. I am 

11 just saying I think that question was raised. 

12 But --

13 MR. STIVER: Okay.

14 MR. ZEITOUN: We have limited 

15 people as I recall, anyway.

16 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry. But can you 

17 just clarify, John, what is the path forward 

18 exactly for --

19 MR. STIVER: I think the path 

20 forward at this point is to obtain 

21 clarification from that particular interviewee 

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

32 1 MR. KATZ: Right.

2 MR. STIVER: -- as to whether 

3 there was ever a breach of the source during 

4 the testing.

5 MR. KATZ: But, so, I mean, my 

6 understanding was that you had these 

7 interviews, you documented them, and you've 

8 already sent this information back to get sort 

9 of approval the people you interviewed that 

10 you've captured the information correctly. 

11 Isn't that where we are with this process? Or 

12 is this --

13 MR. STIVER: We are. So it's 

14 going to be a matter of -- And I don't know 

15 how long it's going to take to have that go 

16 back through DOE again, and then go out to the 

17 interviewee. So it could be a couple of 

18 months down the road.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. But -- I'm just 

20 trying to be clear. So we don't actually have 

21 to go back and interview anyone again? That 

22 information is captured in those notes. It's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

33 1 just that those notes are in the classified 

2 review process. Is that correct?

3 MR. STIVER: Correct.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. All right. 

5 Thanks.

6 MR. DARNELL: No, that's not 

7 correct.

8 MR. KATZ: Oh.

9 MR. DARNELL: This is Pete 

10 Darnell. The notes have been reviewed by DOE. 

11 The redacted notes have been returned. The 

12 classification process has already taken 

13 place. 

14 We have our notes from the 

15 interviews that we're allowed to have and that 

16 we are allowed to talk about. Classified 

17 stuff that's already been classified and taken 

18 over by DOE.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay, then. So the 

20 question then on the table is do people have 

21 to be -- is this information captured in the 

22 information that we received back from DOE, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

34 1 cleared and redacted? Or does someone need to 

2 go back into classified information to sort 

3 out the question that's on the table?

4 MR. DARNELL: According to the 

5 information I have from Mr. Vernon, it's been 

6 cleared and redacted.

7 MR. KATZ: My question is: the 

8 question that you guys just discussed, is it 

9 resolved in the information that was cleared 

10 and returned to you? Or do you have to go 

11 back, either interview this person, or go back 

12 to classified information to sort out the 

13 question that is being discussed here?

14 MR. STIVER: I think, Ted, that 

15 this is going to have to be a follow-up. I 

16 think we're going to have to go back. Because 

17 it's not clear to me that that was indeed the 

18 case. That there was any actual confirmation 

19 that that wasn't a source of exposure.

20 MR. DARNELL: I specifically asked 

21 that question, have it on my notes. I can 

22 tell you the person's name and the time I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

35 1 asked the question about RTG failure analysis.

2 Tests were conducted and the 

3 plutonium source removed. Failure analyzed to 

4 find out why it failed. I asked that question 

5 specifically of [identifying information 

6 redacted]. 

7 MR. STIVER: Okay. I was talking 

8 about [identifying information redacted]. 

9 MR. DARNELL: Those notes have 

10 been -- my notes on that have been redacted. 

11 And the DOE has control of those, because they 

12 were classified.

13 MR. KATZ: Hey, John --

14 MR. STIVER: Those are the people 

15 who are actually involved in the testing. And 

16 to my knowledge, and what I wrote, and my 

17 somewhat kind of less than perfect memory of 

18 the whole situation --

19 MS. LIN: John and Pete --

20 MR. STIVER: They did actually 

21 test those, destructively test them with the 

22 sources intact.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

36 1 MS. LIN: Hi, this is Jenny with 

2 OGC. Can you please refrain from mentioning 

3 the individuals' names in this conversation?

4 MR. DARNELL: Yes, of course. 

5 Sorry about that. I will say this, my 

6 recollection of the conversation is agreeing 

7 with you that the sources were intact, okay.

8 The sources themselves were not 

9 subject to failure testing, okay. And this is 

10 the key point. The RTG itself was failure11 tested. The source itself was not failure12 tested.

13 You have a triple encapsulated 

14 source that was brought to the site clean, as 

15 we have documentation of. Remained at the 

16 site clean from -- by "clean" I mean free from 

17 radioactive contamination.

18 So what we have is an external 

19 exposure potential, period. There was no 

20 destructive testing of the plutonium source 

21 itself.

22 MR. STIVER: Okay, Peter. I'm kind 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

37 1 of losing my voice here. But I see where 

2 you're going with this. My concern was that 

3 they were, when the RTGs were destructively 

4 tested there was a possibility that there 

5 could have been a breach in the source, in the 

6 heat source itself.

7 MR. DARNELL: Was it --

8 MR. STIVER: I'm saying that you 

9 have evidently more detailed recollection that 

10 that did not happen.

11 MR. DARNELL: Well, you see, the 

12 other thing that I have also is the survey 

13 records and documentation of the site. We 

14 don't have a survey documenting plutonium 

15 contamination.

16 We don't have bioassays that would 

17 show a chronic exposure to plutonium. We were 

18 told during the classified interview how those 

19 testings were done, and the protective 

20 clothing that the personnel were wearing, and 

21 what the method that was used for containment.

22 MR. STIVER: Okay. Well, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

38 1 know, to close the loop on this, if we could 

2 get the bioassay for those individuals that 

3 would certainly put an end to it.

4 And we can say for absolute sure, 

5 these are the people who were involved in this 

6 process. There is no indication of an intake 

7 whatsoever among these people, then we can 

8 close this issue out.

9 MR. GLECKLER: This is Brian 

10 Gleckler. I believe we have all the bioassay 

11 data captured for the plutonium bioassay. And 

12 it should be referenced in the TBD.

13 MR. STIVER: Do you have it 

14 reference by name?

15 MR. DARNELL: The entire basis for 

16 removing the plutonium bioassay information 

17 from the TBD was that there was no positive 

18 bioassay ever seen on the site for plutonium. 

19 Also, the backup was the contamination 

20 surveys.

21 And the backup was the 

22 transportation surveys. And the backup was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

39 1 Phil Schofield telling us how Mound shipped 

2 them to Pinellas. You know, it's in the SRDB 

3 now. There's a table --

4 MR. STIVER: if we have the 

5 bioassay data for those individuals and it's 

6 also negative, then I think we can close this 

7 issue out.

8 MR. GLECKLER: It may not be 

9 referenced in the TBD anymore, because we took 

10 out all, a lot of the Pu stuff. 

11 MR. STIVER: But if we have it in 

12 the SRDB, the two individuals I'm thinking 

13 about indicated that they could add that data 

14 set, which led me to believe that was not 

15 already in the data set. 

16 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, this is 

17 Phil. I think we do need to definitely 

18 clarify whether there were any positive 

19 results or not.

20 I'm kind of like Pete and John, my 

21 memory seems a little rusty there. But at the 

22 same time, I do not remember them stating that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

40 1 they had any breaches.

2 MR. STIVER: I didn't remember 

3 them stating that either. And it's just there 

4 was never a positive statement that there 

5 wasn't a breach either.

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Right.

7 MR. STIVER: So yes, if we can 

8 look at the bioassay data from the handful of 

9 individuals, do we dare say -- you know, if 

10 they're in the system and they're negative, 

11 then there's no problem.

12 My only concern was that it 

13 appeared to me from the interview that there 

14 was additional data that had not been added 

15 into the SRDB yet. That may or may not be 

16 true. But I think it would behoove us to at 

17 least follow this down.

18 MR. DARNELL: John, this is Pete. 

19 You also have to remember who we were talking 

20 to. You have one subset of people that we 

21 interviewed that were, had the classified 

22 clearances, were part of the work, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

41 1 understood the process that was going on.

2 Then you had another subset of 

3 individuals who were not part of the process, 

4 had not been brought in on the classified 

5 information, and did not understand what was 

6 going on with these processes.

7 You cannot take someone who does 

8 not understand the process that, as it's going 

9 on behind locked doors in a classified and 

10 controlled manner, and take what they have as 

11 saying there's no data, or not all the data 

12 was there. And that's what you're doing.

13 MR. STIVER: Peter, I understand 

14 100 percent what you're saying. But the 

15 individual I'm thinking of, without saying his 

16 name, was certainly probably the most 

17 knowledgeable one of the entire staff on the 

18 RTG side. I think you know who I'm talking 

19 about.

20 MR. ZEITOUN: This is Abe. I have 

21 the same recollection as John, that there are 

22 -- I got the impression after I left that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

42 1 there are additional data available.

2 And that's part of the thing. And 

3 I remember we discussed that. And my 

4 impression is the same as John's. So we need 

5 to close that loop I think.

6 MR. STIVER: Yes. I think we can 

7 probably seek that off line, and track it 

8 down. Again that data, it was not new data. 

9 And it's already treating this thing, then the 

10 issue goes away. If it isn't we need to 

11 verify it. That's all I'm really looking for 

12 here.

13 MR. ZEITOUN: Yes.

14 MR. DARNELL: I mean, what I'm 

15 looking at is what the health physicist that 

16 we interviewed talked about. And he does not 

17 back up your recollection of what this other 

18 man talked about as far as plutonium bioassay 

19 not being there.

20 You know, if you want to look for 

21 more, by all means. But I don't believe that 

22 as far as this issue goes, that there is more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

43 1 to find. I think if we just keep on chasing 

2 ifs and maybes, we're going to waste a lot of 

3 time with doing that.

4 MR. STIVER: Okay. We may very 

5 well be chasing smoke here. But I would 

6 certainly like to close the loop on that. I 

7 don't think it would take that much effort on 

8 our part.

9 MR. DARNELL: Before we go 

10 further, would you please review your notes 

11 for the health physicist, okay?

12 MR. STIVER: You're talking about 

13 the guy we talked to on the telephone 

14 interview? Or the other one?

15 MR. DARNELL: Yes.

16 MR. STIVER: Okay.

17 MR. DARNELL: He was very -- I 

18 asked very specific questions to him regarding 

19 the RTG testing. And if there were anybody 

20 that were in the know for the bioassay and the 

21 radiological controls, it would be him, okay. 

22 And in both cases he answered negatively to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

44 1 what you're saying that we need --

2 MR. STIVER: I will go back 

3 through and I guess Abe, and Peter and I can 

4 take this up off the record, if that's okay 

5 with you, Ted.

6 MR. KATZ: Oh, no. That's 

7 absolutely fine. Why don't you -- clearly you 

8 need to have resolution in your mind, John, 

9 about this. And following up with them off 

10 line is perfectly fine. Okay.

11 MR. DARNELL: John, may I ask that 

12 you please get in touch with me today, or at 

13 the latest tomorrow. I have personal 

14 considerations. I'm going to be out for the 

15 rest of the year after tomorrow.

16 MR. STIVER: Okay. I will do.

17 MR. DARNELL: Thank you.

18 MR. STIVER: All right. I can go 

19 for a little bit longer here. Next is Issue 

20 Number 5. And this was the performance 

21 characteristics in the TBD-6 for the film 

22 badge dosimeters.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

45 1 We did a review of that. This 

2 Attachment 2 highlights our findings in there. 

3 And those of you who have that open, it 

4 starts on Page 7. And we really kept it down 

5 to, in Table 6-5, well let's see -- I have 

6 mine right here.

7 This is the original version, used 

8 .02 rem as the MDA for the Landauer film. 

9 Table 6-9, which is the most current version, 

10 uses .01 for the limit of detection.

11 We, the only issue we had in this 

12 aspect of it was that we felt in the energy 

13 photon environment, the LOD of 0.02 rem was 

14 probably more appropriate and claimant15 favorable. We also noted that in our review 

16 of the INL Site Profile, came to the same 

17 conclusion.

18 And so we also note in pre-1974 

19 film batch dosimetry reviews are fairly 

20 claimant favorable LOD of .04 rem. But for a 

21 non-Landauer it's being recommended that -- 

22 Or excuse me, for non-Landauer film the 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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

46 1 mrem is being recommended, but not for 

2 Landauer.

3 So that was our only concern, that 

4 we would recommend that the value in Table 6-9 

5 be changed from .01 to .02. Everything else 

6 we found was reasonable and claimant7 favorable.

8 MR. GLECKLER: This is Brian 

9 Gleckler. What's the basis for the 

10 recommended LOD that you, your Landauer --

11 MR. STIVER: Well the only thing 

12 we can find is that there -- well this is 

13 speculation at this point. But there was 

14 broad brush type claim by Landauer that they 

15 could reach a detection limit of ten millirem 

16 in their older dosimetry reports and client 

17 literature.

18 But when the other film goes in 

19 there that was in that era, ten rem would have 

20 been a pretty unthinkable feat to achieve. 

21 Because, you'd have issues of background 

22 fogging, processing changes, the precision, or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

47 1 I guess the granularity of the, what on that 

2 corresponds to how many --

3 You know, a feel for the high 

4 energy photons for those reasons that we've 

5 enumerated there in the attachment to the -- 

6 it would probably be more realistic, and more 

7 claimant favorable to go back to .02, as to 

8 .01.

9 MR. GLECKLER: That's for high 

10 energy photons?

11 MR. STIVER: Yes. The type that

12 we would be dealing with in this situation.

13 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. For the 

14 neutron generator testing though, those were 

15 X-rays. So those more likely would be low 

16 energy photons. We do use the 30 to 250 keV 

17 photon energy distribution though.

18 MR. STIVER: Yes. And, you know, 

19 based on the distribution that you'd be using 

20 --

21 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. MR. 

22 STIVER: -- that would probably be more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

48 1 appropriate for that film type. John Mauro, 

2 are you still on the line?

3 MR. DARNELL: Hey, John, this is 

4 Pete Darnell.

5 MR. STIVER: Yes.

6 MR. DARNELL: Are you speaking 

7 specifically to the photographic film? Or to 

8 Landauer type G, B or --

9 MR. STIVER: That -- Let me pull 

10 up the -- Yes, Table 6.9 here, on I believe 

11 Page 31. It's probably the 1974 in July, and

12 up through 1990. And you can see --

13 MR. DARNELL: Okay, it's not the 

14 dosimeter now, the film.

15 MR. STIVER: Yes, this particular 

16 dosimeter.

17 MR. DARNELL: Brian, do we have 

18 any further information on why we chose .01?

19 MR. STIVER: I guess because we 

20 didn't fill this in, there's a reason for 

21 that. And maybe it's a legitimate reason. 

22 MR. GLECKLER: I'm not familiar 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

49 1 with the basis for that, other than it was in 

2 the original TBD, which I wasn't the original 

3 author on. So I just maintained those values.

4 But from what I remember, I've 

5 looked at Landauer stuff for other sites to 

6 come up with approaches using, you know, track 

7 down LODs.

8 And it looks like they used what 

9 we've used for other sites if you go into the 

10 Landauer literature, which is mostly like the 

11 fronts and the backs of the dosimetry reports, 

12 or dosimeter results reports.

13 They'll usually have the LOD value 

14 listed. And it's like, I'm pretty sure that's 

15 what they list for those dosimeters. So it's 

16 just a --

17 MR. STIVER: Okay.

18 MR. GLECKLER: It's an issue. If 

19 you guys don't --

20 MR. STIVER: If you can get back 

21 to us on what the basis was, you know. I 

22 think we could probably put that one to rest 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

50 1 pretty quickly.

2 MR. DARNELL: If the Landaer LOD 

3 is basis for this, we can put it to bed. Is 

4 that what you're saying?

5 MR. STIVER: Yes. If we could get 

6 the basis for that. And if we didn't agree 

7 that once we hear your explanation as to why. 

8 And then we can either make a change or let 

9 it go as is. We're getting all kinds of a 

10 paper trail and, you know, the historic basis 

11 for why things were done the way they were.

12 MR. DARNELL: Brian, can you get 

13 that together?

14 MR. GLECKLER: Yes, I believe so. 

15 And then I think I've got a collection of 

16 stuff on that.

17 MR. STIVER: Okay. All right. In 

18 that case we can move on. Okay, Issue 6. 

19 This is the whole issue of D&D monitoring. 

20 And this is another one --

21 The idea being was, you know, 

22 groups and things, the contract employees or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

51 1 other workers during the D&D period who were 

2 not adequately monitored and may have had 

3 exposure potential by virtue of breaking in 

4 the, you know, previously contained sources, 

5 such as the contaminated glove box.

6 Or say, got to work and may have 

7 accumulated particulates or various forms of 

8 organically bound tritium and so forth over 

9 time.

10 Were these people adequately 

11 protected and monitored? And the same HP that 

12 Peter referred to earlier gave us a lot of 

13 good information on this.

14 And he indicated that basically 

15 all the contract employees were monitored by 

16 Pinellas RadSafe, before, during and after the 

17 D&D operations. And that the data and 

18 electronic records were sent to DOE 

19 Albuquerque.

20 And the SDAR has management and 

21 they have copies of the released surveys as 

22 well. So we would like to follow up with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

52 1 [identifying information redacted] and see if 

2 we can get those confirmatory data, so that we 

3 can close this one out.

4 And I think, based on what he told 

5 us, it sounds like they had a very robust 

6 program in place. So that certainly puts my 

7 mind at ease. However, I would sure like to 

8 see the results. It looks like they are 

9 available.

10 MR. DARNELL: And one thing I'd 

11 like to point out, John, Pete Darnell again. 

12 One thing I'd like to point out is that Brian 

13 and I discussed D&D a little bit Friday.

14 The doses that we do have in house 

15 already were reduced drastically from the 

16 already low doses that we had during Pinellas 

17 Plant operation.

18 And basically what we're doing is 

19 continuing the coworker model through D&D. 

20 But we'll be glad to go ahead and look for any 

21 other records. I think we've already sent to 

22 Albuquerque looking for records.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

53 1 MR. STIVER: Okay. Maybe we could 

2 coordinate with you then. And see if we can 

3 get back in touch with [identifying 

4 information redacted]. He could let us know 

5 if there are additional records out there that 

6 we could look at. My sense is that you're 

7 entirely correct that the doses are going to 

8 be a very small fraction of that coworker 

9 dose.

10 MR. DARNELL: Yes.

11 MR. STIVER: But, you know, just 

12 kind of confirmatory -- I'm sure that's what 

13 would really satisfy us, I think.

14 MR. DARNELL: Okay. Well I'll 

15 check on Albuquerque requests and make sure 

16 that we have received everything. I doubt the 

17 health physicist himself will be able to help 

18 us. Because he's not the records custodian

19 MR. STIVER: Yes. If he can at 

20 least point us to the right person, you know, 

21 give --

22 MR. DARNELL: Yes. He actually 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

54 1 did in our interview. He gave us a contact 

2 name at Albuquerque. And I'll get something 

3 started on that.

4 MR. STIVER: Okay. That sounds 

5 good.

6 MR. DARNELL: And we can get Mauro 

7 to double check on those records.

8 MR. STIVER: All right. Thank you 

9 very much. Issue 7. This is to review Level 

10 1 of TBD-3, which was not available at the 

11 time, as of October of last year. I believe 

12 it was published or posted a day or two after 

13 that meeting.

14 And we did, in fact, review that 

15 document. And we found that it answered all 

16 of our concerns for findings ten through 12. 

17 And, you know, Sub-Issue 1, I believe it was. 

18 So we are on board with NIOSH. We think that 

19 that issue can be closed out.

20 I'd talk more about it. But I 

21 think I'm about to completely lose my voice 

22 here. So that's really where we stand at this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

55

1 point. If anybody else would like to weigh in 

2 on that, or have any objections.

3 I don't see that there really 

4 would be. But I guess we can just proceed 

5 with the, doing taskings that we come through 

6 with today. If you all want -- did you have 

7 anything else you wanted to say?

8 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Not on that 

9 one. I mean, I agree. Let's go ahead and 

10 close it out.

11 MR. STIVER: Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: And I was 

13 just kind of looking at, to go back to Brad's 

14 question, roughly how long any of this -- 

15 Well mostly just confirmation of what we 

16 already have, one way or the other, 

17 clarification or confirmation.

18 Are we looking at two months, 

19 three months down the road? Or, I realize 

20 especially with all the holidays coming up we 

21 may be pushed back a little farther. Anybody 

22 have any thoughts?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

56 1 MR. KATZ: Well, so this is Ted. 

2 Let's ask Bob -- I mean, we have two tasks. 

3 One, I mean, Jim Neton's going to get back to 

4 us with a time frame for his follow up. But 

5 Bob Barton, could you let us know, how long 

6 will it take you to look at the data for 

7 completeness?

8 MR. BARTON: It's difficult to 

9 say, Ted, until I can kind of really take a 

10 look at what we're dealing with here. I mean, 

11 I can get an estimate out in a couple of days. 

12 But offhand I can't really throw a number out 

13 there without actually seeing what it is we'd 

14 be dealing with.

15 MR. KATZ: That's fine, Bob. I 

16 just -- so if you will, just as we're going to 

17 wait for Jim to let us know a time frame, if 

18 you would just, when you figure that out, 

19 sorted that out, if you would send to the Work 

20 Group your estimate of roughly when.

21 Obviously we don't need a day, or 

22 even exactly a week. But roughly when you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

57

1 think SC&A can have a report out, cleared and 

2 back to the Work Group, that would be great.

3 MR. BARTON: That's not a problem, 

4 Ted.

5 MR. KATZ: Thank you. So I think 

6 we probably cannot schedule the next Work 

7 Group meeting until we hear back, and sort of 

8 know what time frame we're dealing with.

9 MR. STIVER: Yes. That sounds 

10 reasonable to me.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: John, this is 

12 Brad Clawson again. But you're going to run

13 this one -- about the destructive testing of 

14 these?

15 MR. STIVER: Yes. Peter and I and 

16 Abe are going to talk about this.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. The reason 

18 being is because when we went through Sandia 

19 and stuff, they talked about the same process 

20 coming up through from Pinellas.

21 And when we interviewed people at 

22 Sandia there was a little bit different 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

58 1 interpretation. I just want to make sure that 

2 we get this right as we proceed forward.

3 MR. KATZ: Right. I agree, Brad. 

4 And this is Ted again. So just, if we could, 

5 once you've had your discussion off line with 

6 Pete and others, and you sort of know what the 

7 course is forward for that, whether it's put 

8 to bed, or whether there's more to do, and 

9 what that might be.

10 Again, here, if you could just 

11 shoot a note to the whole Work Group to let 

12 them know what to expect there, that would be 

13 great.

14 MR. STIVER: Okay. Will do.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Also too, John, 

16 you'll probably find out that this is a 

17 classified matter too.

18 MR. STIVER: I know it is.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Just for -- 

20 Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we kept 

21 that understood.

22 MR. KATZ: All right. This will 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

59 1 be a -- what ever is noted, shot to the Work 

2 Group, will be discreet and appropriate, I'm 

3 sure.

4 MR. STIVER: Okay. I guess that's 

5 really all I had to talk about here. I think 

6 we -- the big issue was really working through 

7 the Mound tritides, the paper and it's 

8 applicability.

9 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: One think I'd 

10 like to throw back out is, I don't remember 

11 off hand, and from looking I might have missed 

12 it. Is looking for any positive bioassay for 

13 the plutonium.

14 MR. DARNELL: We've actually 

15 already addressed that with a White Paper. 

16 It's been out for a number of years. We can 

17 re-send that.

18 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, if you'd 

19 re-send it.

20 MR. DARNELL: There was no 

21 positive bioassay.

22 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Okay. That 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

60 1 was my thinking. But I just wanted to make 

2 sure that that clarification is, you know, 

3 stated out there.

4 Since you've gotten more documents 

5 since the White Paper came out, I just wanted 

6 to make sure nothing had changed, nothing new 

7 had come up on that.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Pete, this is 

9 Brad Clawson. But they weren't checking for 

10 plutonium, right?

11 MR. DARNELL: Yes, they were.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I just 

13 wanted to make sure.

14 MR. GLECKLER: This is Brian 

15 Gleckler. Just as a correction. Some of 

16 those plutonium bioassay samples were 

17 positive. But he White Paper addresses that. 

18 Most of the positives were the baselines 

19 before they went into the area.

20 MR. STIVER: Right. Brad, this is 

21 John. I remember reading that.

22 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. And then a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

61 1 number of them were also positive for Pu-239, 

2 and not Pu-238, which these sources were 

3 dominated by Pu-238.

4 MR. STIVER: You normally don't 

5 see 239 without 238.

6 MR. GLECKLER: Yes. But the White 

7 Paper addresses that.

8 MR. DARNELL: I should have been 

9 more specific in saying there were no 

10 operational positive bioassays.

11 MR. STIVER: If you could send 

12 that to me, because I don't know if I still 

13 have the old version of it.

14 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. Right. 

15 If we could just redistribute that to the Work 

16 Group that would be great.

17 MR. DARNELL: Okay.

18 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Pete.

19 MR. DARNELL: Not a problem.

20 MR. STIVER: Okay, Peter I'll 

21 probably try to call you tomorrow. Because I 

22 don't think I can talk today anymore.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

62 1 MR. DARNELL: Okay.

2 MR. STIVER: All right.

3 MR. DARNELL: I just have to email 

4 you with my phone number.

5 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Anybody else 

6 have any concerns that we need to be addressed 

7 at this time? If not, I think we are 

8 adjourned.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay.

10 MS. HAND: Can I have a chance to 

11 speak? This is Donna Hand.

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Go ahead.

13 MS. HAND: Okay. The RTGs that 

14 they're talking about, in a 1990 annual report 

15 they showed that there was plutonium. They 

16 have measured plutonium. And then you talking 

17 about the positive bioassays.

18 That was talked about in the very 

19 first Work Group meeting. Everything where 

20 Glecker kept on saying that, well the 

21 background was positive. And then everything 

22 from then on was left.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

63 1 When was that background taken? 

2 Because the RTGs was first put in Building 100 

3 in a area around 126. Then when they built on 

4 to 400 and making it larger, then it was taken 

5 to Building 400. So was that baseline? Or 

6 was it when it was in Building 100?

7 You know, the very first report 

8 that John Mauro kept on saying is that the 

9 integrity of the data. You don't have the 

10 information. Everything before 1980 you do 

11 not have.

12 I had did a Freedom of Information 

13 Act request on the actual data that was used 

14 for this dose reconstruction. And the 

15 information that I obtained through that 

16 Freedom of Information Act is absolutely 

17 opposite of what the Site Profile is.

18 And the film badges were shipped 

19 out to be read. They weren't read in the 

20 beginning, in house. Because they had 

21 questions on it fogging. You have two or 

22 three memos in the original Site Profile 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

64 1 talking about the badges problem.

2 So the, and the actual workers 

3 that worked with the RTGs, that tested them, 

4 inform me that there were two. And then I 

5 said, you can't tell me any more.

6 So, and you're using the HP 

7 [identifying information redacted], his report 

8 for the decommissioning and dismantling report 

9 that you have to use to document, does not 

10 have any dosimetry information on it, does not 

11 have any air monitoring on it, does not have 

12 any survey swipes on it.

13 And right now DOE is going through 

14 47,000 pages of documentation to make sure 

15 it's not classified, to give it to me under 

16 the Freedom of Information Act. And I still 

17 have not received those.

18 So the information that you've 

19 been receiving, and it's been stating, and the 

20 redacting, it's hurting these Pinellas Plant 

21 workers whenever they're being treated 

22 differently from everybody else.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

65 1 And the original Work Group 

2 committee, Peter Darnell admitted that before 

3 1982 the average was 500. After 1982 through 

4 1993 it was 550 millirems. That was the 

5 coworker dose, that was the dose. But yet he 

6 gives everybody 100, you know.

7 So you're not using the 95th 

8 percentile. And again, at the December 

9 meeting I gave Dr. Neton, and also Dr. Mauro a 

10 copy of a gentleman's file that worked with 

11 the RTGs, that showed where he was monitored.

12 And he did receive doses. But he 

13 didn't have a cancer, so you all guys didn't 

14 get that data. And that is no fair on the 

15 references where I requested, you know, what 

16 did you use.

17 In another claimant's file, in her 

18 file this health physicist reports, saying 

19 that in 1959 there was 500, over 500 bioassays 

20 taken. And 149 of them was tritium. This was 

21 in her individual file. It was not put into 

22 the Pinellas Plant overall Site Profile.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

66 1 You also have a situation to where 

2 we have, what, five metal tritides. And one 

3 of them are classified. So how are you going 

4 to do that one? Because they had scandium, 

5 they had titanium, they had erbium.

6 Erbium went to Dr. Chew for his 

7 study. And that came from Pinellas, and he 

8 did a study on that one. And then you had the 

9 uranium, which was the majority of it, and 

10 then the classified one.

11 MR. KATZ: Donna, this is Ted 

12 Katz. Can I make a suggestion here? Because 

13 you've sort of, you're speaking about just a 

14 whole host of different issues, which make it 

15 practically impossible for folks to respond to 

16 you.

17 I mean, I'd suggest if you want 

18 the Work Group to, you know, provide a 

19 response, or staff to the Work Group, whether 

20 it's at DCAS or SC&A, to provide responses to 

21 these, it would be best if you put these 

22 things in writing and distribute them for, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

67 1 before the next Work Group meeting. And 

2 people, they could go down a list and actually 

3 give you responses if you want it on line. I 

4 mean, you know --

5 MS. HAND: I don't --

6 MR. KATZ: But it's very difficult 

7 to respond to all these different matters that 

8 are disconnected in one go --

9 MS. HAND: Well I disagree about 

10 being disconnected. You all talked about the 

11 RTGs, you talked about the plutonium. You're 

12 taking that dose off. But yet, there was 

13 finger badges and wrist badges that had doses 

14 on them.

15 So you got to make sure they get

16 the external dose from the RTGs. Because the 

17 reports that I saw had dosimetry records 

18 showing that there was radiation there, you 

19 know. And they've got it. So is that going 

20 to go the external, and added on to the 

21 external for these people?

22 And the neutron dose you don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

68 1 even use it at all to any of the claimants 

2 hardly. And you've got, the whole thing is, 

3 is that this has been going on since April of 

4 2008. That's when the Board was requested.

5 You requested back before, I think 

6 in 2011, March of 2011. Darnell was asked to, 

7 can you or can you not do the internal dose 

8 for Pinellas Plant. And instead of him 

9 answering that, he comes back with a whole 

10 brand new Site Profile that deleted all the 

11 information.

12 He was very much aware of the 1997 

13 baseline report which shows 28 radionuclides 

14 at the Pinellas Plant. But they're all 

15 completely ignored.

16 MR. DARNELL: Ms. Hand, this is 

17 Peter Darnell. I know from past experience 

18 that we've addressed the 28 nuclide issue with 

19 you several times in writing.

20 MS. HAND: No, sir. You've 

21 ignored them. In fact, you said -- but that's 

22 a different issue, and that's not for you. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

69 1 This is what I'll write up for the Board.

2 Because even in the very first 

3 Work Group committee Peter Darnell said, we 

4 can't believe anything that the Pinellas Plant 

5 workers say because they don't, they make 

6 mistakes. Larry Elliott says, oh that was a 

7 clean plant. There's nothing there. So you 

8 already had a biased opinion in 2009.

9 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I'm going to 

10 throw out something here. I mean, I do have 

11 to agree with both SC&A and NIOSH that as far 

12 as positive bioassay for plutonium, given the 

13 nature of RTGs you're going to see a positive 

14 result for 239, you're going to see a positive 

15 result for 238. That's just a given, given 

16 what an RTG, what they are.

17 MR. DARNELL: Absolutely correct.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Donna, this is 

19 Brad Clawson from the Board. What Ted told 

20 you is absolutely true. Because I'd like to 

21 be able to look at each one of these comments 

22 that you have --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

70 1 MS. HAND: Thank you.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- and make sure 

3 that we have addressed this properly to you. 

4 But I'll tell you right now, I'm going back 

5 through all this.

6 If you can write it up so that we 

7 can follow up on this, especially the Work 

8 Group, in a setting where we can have the 

9 discussion back and forth, I would appreciate 

10 it. Because I would like to make sure that 

11 this is done right too.

12 MS. HAND: Thank you. I will do 

13 that. Because I'm reviewing all the way from 

14 the very day one, the very first agenda where 

15 Preston says, okay guys, you can't talk about 

16 this anymore.

17 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Well we might 

18 have to have some of these discussions in a 

19 classified setting. I mean, that's something 

20 that we will have to address.

21 MS. HAND: And that's fine. But 

22 the thing is, if it's classified, you know, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

71 1 just want to make sure that the claimants, 

2 that the Pinellas Plant workers get the equal 

3 justice that all the other sites have gotten.

4 MR. KATZ: Right. Donna, this is 

5 Ted. And so again, I mean, clearly if there's 

6 classified things those can't be discussed. 

7 But whatever questions you may have, you're 

8 not dealing with classified information 

9 yourself. And they can be responded to you I 

10 some sort of general way, without broaching 

11 classified information.

12 So again, if you would provide 

13 this in writing. And the further in advance 

14 of a meeting that you provide this, your set 

15 of questions, the better prepared everybody 

16 can be to answer them as part of that Work 

17 Group meeting, okay.

18 MS. HAND: Will do. Thank you.

19 MR. DARNELL: Ted, I have one 

20 quick question.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes.

22 MR. DARNELL: Could we, NIOSH has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

72 1 responded to Ms. Hand quite often. Would the 

2 Board like to see those responses?

3 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Yes, please.

4 MR. KATZ: Right. I mean, Pete, 

5 so I think again, the path forward though, I 

6 think once we have Donna's questions in hand, 

7 in writing, I think that would be perfectly 

8 appropriate, Pete, for you to just submit to 

9 the rest of the Work Group those responses 

10 that you already have made to some of these 

11 issues.

12 Then the Work Group doesn't have 

13 to spend a lot of time with that. Although if 

14 there's gaps, if there's issues that haven't 

15 been addressed, those are the ones that the 

16 Work Group can run over in the meeting.

17 MS. HAND: I'd also like to note, 

18 and I will also be sending you copies whereof 

19 the email that's sent to me, where Peter 

20 Darnell said he didn't have to use the Site 

21 Profile.

22 So the information in the Site 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

73 1 Profile he didn't have to use, nor does he 

2 have to use the DOE handbook. So the answers 

3 to my questions that they answered are just 

4 generalized questions. And --

5 MR. KATZ: Donna, what we really 

6 want from you is not a whole cart load of 

7 different things. But really, if you would 

8 just provide the questions, the technical 

9 questions, what have you, that you would like 

10 answers to.

11 Then, you know, Pete certainly has 

12 his records of what responses he's given 

13 before, as do others. And that all can be 

14 organized in a reasonable way.

15 MS. HAND: And I understand that. 

16 But his, but my thing is that his comment, 

17 everything about the way he's answered the 

18 things, he never signed any of the responses. 

19 So he can't, you know, so nobody's taking 

20 accountability of those responses.

21 MR. KATZ: But, Donna, I mean --

22 MS. HAND: And listen first, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

74 1 please, okay. And then when I did the Special 

2 Exposure Cohort petition we didn't qualify. 

3 Because they're using those responses that 

4 they used on the close out interviews.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay, Donna, all that 

6 being said. Again, I'm just trying to be 

7 clear with you. What we would like from you 

8 is just the technical questions you would like 

9 answers to.

10 Everyone will pull together what 

11 responses have already been provided. And 

12 we'll address those that haven't in the 

13 meeting.

14 And really, issues of process and 

15 what people might have said, and so on, really 

16 isn't your main -- we're trying to just settle 

17 technical issues so that we can put to bed the 

18 TBD review that's being done by the --

19 MS. HAND: Agreed, agreed. I will 

20 give you technical issues with questions, and 

21 with the facts that I have to make sure that 

22 we're dealing with facts, and not, you know, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

75

1 suspicions.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you.

3 MS. HAND: Thank you.

4 MR. DARNELL: I have one more 

5 quick question for the group. I have 

6 Schofield, Clawson, Stiver, Zeitoun for 

7 distribution for the plutonium White Paper. 

8 Is there anybody else?

9 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. John Poston 

10 would like to see it. I thought we were going 

11 to send it to everybody.

12 MR. DARNELL: I can't hear you.

13 MR. KATZ: Yes. Mr. Poston is 

14 also a Member of the Work Group.

15 MR. DARNELL: Poston?

16 MR. KATZ: Yes. And if you would 

17 just copy me, Pete, that would be great. 

18 Because then if anybody is left out or anyone 

19 else needs it, I can send it on again, 

20 particularly since you'll be out after 

21 tomorrow.

22 MR. DARNELL: I actually don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

76 1 have Dr. Poston's email. So I'll have, if one 

2 of you will forward it to him.

3 MR. KATZ: I'll take care of that. 

4 Thanks, Pete.

5 MR. DARNELL: Okay.

6 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: Just one last 

7 thing. This is really off the record and 

8 different subject. I was just going to tell 

9 Pete, good luck.

10 MR. DARNELL: Thank you. It's 

11 been quite a road. And it's going to be 

12 another quite a road. So I appreciate that, 

13 Phil.

14 MR. STIVER: And I'd like to 

15 second that, Peter. Best of luck.

16 MR. DARNELL: Thank you.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then --

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: I was going to 

19 say all the best, Pete, but I was on mute. 

20 This is Brad. Good luck. I just got done 

21 with my game. So best of luck to you. 

22 MR. DARNELL: Thanks. Thank you, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

77

1 Brad. I appreciate it guy. So Abe and John, 

2 I'll talk to you tomorrow.

3 MR. STIVER: Okay. We'll do that.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you 

5 everybody. And, Phil, I think we're 

6 adjourned.

7 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: I totally 

8 agree with that, unless there's any last thing 

9 we need to open. If not, we're adjourned.

10 MR. KATZ: Thank you. Take care 

11 everybody. Have a good Thanksgiving.

12 CHAIRMAN SCHOFIELD: You too. 

13 Thanks a lot.

14 (Whereupon, the meeting in the 

15 above-entitled matter was adjourned at 12:14 

16 p.m.)

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

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

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

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the Pinellas Plant Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader 

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

78 1 

2